Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

STANDING ORDERS.

Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: I beg to move,
That so much of Standing Order 91 as fixes Five as the quorum of the Select Committee on Standing Orders be read and suspended.
The object of this Motion is to expedite public business. There are two important matters down for consideration on Monday next, and, in view of the fact that many Members of the Committee are on other Committees, it is thought necessary to reduce the quorum.

HON. MEMBERS: Object.

Mr. SPEAKER: Objection cannot be taken before Three o'Clock.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yesterday we were allowed to take objection, and we were not told about the Three o'Clock Rule. It seems to me rather peculiar that on one day a simple objection should operate, and that on the following day it should not. I understand the reason for this Motion is the pressure of public business and that it is difficult to get Members to attend, but that does not apply to Mondays. So far as I am aware, there is no Committee that meets on Monday.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I could tell you of one.

Mr. BUCHANAN: You could not tell me of many. That grievance, we allege, is not a valid one. Let me come to the other reason. Certain Members seem to have a glut of Committee work while others seem to have no Committees at all. This business ought to be faced. The House of Commons passes certain Standing Orders to govern its business at the beginning of the year. It is a perfectly
good argument that for an occasion these things might be suspended, but when it becomes a regular routine business every year the whole thing is altered, and the House ought in a correct and legitimate way to alter its Standing Orders. We are now told this thing cannot be done. This temporary expedient year after year is a form of blackmail. I agree that the Mersey tunnel is an important piece of constructive work, but why should I be held up to blackmail against my public duty by the Mersey Tunnel? The thing is not fair, and it is not reasonable, and there is a remedy for the House if it wants it. Either the House ought to fulfil its legitimate obligations and have the Rules altered, or those who serve on the Standing Orders Committee, which is doing important public work, ought to limit their activities in regard to other Committees. I do not want to deprive Members of the opportunity of putting questions, but it seems to me this is forcing on me an objectionable practice which I do not want to take up. But this is not going to happen, so far as I am concerned if I am privileged—and I am likely to be—to be a Member of the House for some time to come. I am more likely than most. The hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir Newton Moore) looks like being here next year, too, and I hope he is going to face up to get this altered. This practice of certain Members getting too much work on Committees while others are denied the opportunity is becoming far too common. The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought next year to get the thing done in a proper fashion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Could we have a word from the Chairman of the Committee as to what the business actually is on Monday. It would give us a better idea of the strength of the case. The Mersey Tunnel Bill has been passed, and the tunnel is in process of construction now. My constituency has been denied equal facilities, but I do not mind that. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us a short account of the actual work to be done by a quorum of three instead of five?

Sir NEWTON MOORE: I was not aware that this innocent little Motion would meet with such strong opposition. It is a Measure always brought forward
after Whitsuntide in view of the fact that there is a certain amount of congestion of public business. Some Members who are on the Standing Orders Committee are also members of other Committees, and it will be for them to decide, if the Motion is not carried, whether it would not be wise for them to neglect their other business in order to come to the Standing Orders Committee. I have only brought it forward in accordance with precedent and with a view to expediting any business that may be brought up for discussion on Monday, which is the next meeting. Amongst other matters that will be discussed, there is a Motion in connection with the Mersey Tunnel—I do not know exactly the nature of the business—and there are one or two other questions which will be brought before the Committee. I have not brought it forward with a view to giving information in regard to any particular Measure. It has been customary to bring it forward after Whitsuntide, and it has generally been accepted. If hon. Members object to it, of course we shall have to carry on and endeavour to obtain a quorum.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Evidently, it is not essential that we should pass this Motion now. I am afraid the House of Commons is rather slack in its attendance. It would be just as well if Members were made definitely aware that they have to attend this Committee and should not take up two or three Committees.

It being Three of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Mr. SPEAKER: Debate to be resumed?

Sir NEWTON MOORE: I do not propose to bring it forward again.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the remarks made by the magistrate in connection with the proceedings taken recently
against a man for making a false declaration when applying for unemployment benefit; and if he will state whether any alteration has since been made in the precautions taken to prevent frauds of this kind?

Major Sir GEORGE HENNESSY (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. Reports have appeared in the Press of the case which my hon. and gallant. Friend apparently has in mind. The case was one in which a claimant for benefit, who had stated that he had applied for an old age pension, denied that he was actually in receipt of one, though repeatedly questioned on the subject. The instructions are that in such circumstances the facts should be ascertained from the old age pensions office, and it is regretted that in the present case these instructions do not appear to have been carried out.

Sir F. HALL: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the recent conviction of two men, members of a Bethnal Green gang of warehouse and shop thieves, who, at the time of their conviction, were drawing unemployment pay and also receiving relief from the local guardians; whether, in order to prevent this form of fraud, the guardians are furnished with particulars of persons within their jurisdiction who are receiving unemployment pay; and if he will state whether the two men in question will be treated as entitled to receive unemployment benefit again when they come out of gaol?

Sir G. HENNESSY: Inquiries are being made as regards the case referred to in the question. Generally, I may say that arrangements have been made for co-operation between the Employment Exchanges and boards of guardians, and for supplying the latter with information as to the payment of unemployment benefit in the particular cases specified by them. The question whether the two men mentioned by my hon. Friend will be eligible for unemployment benefit after serving their sentences will depend on the decision of the statutory authorities to whom any claim that the men may make will be referred.

ROTA COMMITTEE, BISHOP AUCKLAND.

Mr. SPOOR: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of members on the
rota committee in Bishop Auckland, giving the numbers representing the employers, the employed, and the co-opted members, respectively, and the attendances in each case during six months to the last convenient date; who issues the invitations to attend the meetings of the committee; and whether action is taken to ensure that representatives of workpeople are present at all meetings of the rota committee in numbers equal to the other members representing the employers and co-opted members?

Sir HENNESSY: The information requested is not available without local inquiry. The hon. Member will be communicated with as soon as it has been obtained.

INSURANCE BILL.

Mr. CLYNES: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether arrangements will be made for the introduction of the promised Unemployment Insurance Bill before the Summer Adjournment, in order that Members may be able to examine it, and, if necessary, consult their constituents during the Recess?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I am afraid that would be quite impossible. The Bill contains a number of technical details which have yet to be arranged, and I am afraid some little time must elapse before they are settled. I will take steps to see that the Bill gets into Members' hands in ample time before the Second Reading is taken.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: May I ask to what Bill the right hon. Gentleman is referring, because we could not hear a word of the question?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Unemployment Insurance Bill.

Mr. STEPHEN: The Prime Minister says that he will see that hon. Members get ample time to examine this Bill before the Second Reading. Does he mean that there is absolutely no chance that we can have it during the Recess?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say when the Bill will be taken. In the event of the Bill being taken early in the Autumn Session, I will see that it is supplied to hon. Members during the Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

ARREST FOR, NON- PAYMENT.

Colonel DAY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case which occurred on the 18th of June last, when a person arrested for non-compliance with a judgment order for the payment of a debt in respect of Income Tax was detained in prison until Monday because there was no person authorised to receive payment when tendered on Saturday afternoon; and whether he can make arrangements for the police to receive payment in such circumstances with a view to the consequent release of the debtor?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have no control over the arrangements for obtaining release by making payments in such cases and I do not think it within the province of the police to receive payment on behalf of sheriffs; but I am consulting the authorities concerned with a view to seeing whether the present arrangements can be improved upon.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was a case a fortnight ago in which a man was kept in prison until Monday although the money was tendered to the Governor of the prison and the police, and can some arrangement be made whereby a man, whose friends are able and willing to pay, can be released? Will he take that into consideration?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Personally, I am painfully aware of that case, because I was rung up in the country about it. As I say, I have no power, and I will consult the authorities to see whether an improvement can be made.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is not the remedy to keep out of debt?

SMALL DWELLINGS (PURCHASED BY INSTALMENTS).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 17.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that many persons who are purchasing their houses through the Small Dwellings Act, building societies, and on the instalment system, are being served with notices to pay Income Tax
under Schedule A (Property Tax) although their incomes are below the Income Tax limit; and, in order to remove their doubts, will he make a statement on this matter?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): If a house-owner's income is of such an amount that he is not liable to Income Tax, he can claim exemption from any tax under Schedule A charged in respect of his property. Where the property is subject to annual charges, such as ground rent or mortgage interest, the exempt owner will merely be called upon to pay to the Revenue the tax which he deducts from his ground landlord or mortgagor, upon whom, and not upon the owner, the, charge of such tax therefore falls. If the hon. Member has in mind any case in which it is alleged that an exempt owner is being called upon to pay—and ultimately to bear—Income Tax under Schedule A in respect of his property, and will furnish me with the necessary particulars, I will gladly have the matter investigated and will, in due course, communicate to him the result.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

STEAM TRACTORS.

Mr. W. BAKER: 3.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to state the number of complaints which have been made respecting the emission of smoke, steam, and sparks by steam tractors as a result of the circular to Chief Constables and the Chief of the Metropolitan Police which he promised to issue on the 3rd March last; and whether, in view of the continuance of this danger on the main roads leading out of London, he will ask the Chief of the Metropolitan Police to see that the matter has his special attention?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: With regard to the provinces I have no information, but I understand from the Commissioner that no specific complaints on the matter have been received by the Metropolitan Police since the issue of the Home Office Memorandum on 10th March last. The Metropolitan Police are fully alive to their duties in the matter, and I do not think it is necessary for me to
issue any further instructions on the subject. If, of course, the hon. Member has any information which I have not, I will gladly consider it.

Mr. BAKER: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the complaint I sent to him at the beginning of the week of a flagrant breach of Regulations in regard to this matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot charge my mind as to whether I have seen it. I know there was a letter from the hon. Member a few days ago, but I have received so many letters that I cannot keep all of them in my head. This question does not refer to any particular letter.

Mr. BAKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a daily occurrence on the main roads leading out of London for steam tractors to pollute the atmosphere in the way of which complaint is made?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: All I can say is, that, with the exception of the possible complaint to which the hon. Member refers, I have had no complaints, but I will communicate again with the Commissioner of Police and ask him to let me have a report of what takes place during the next 10 days.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Having regard to the nuisance caused by the cut out of the exhaust on petrol vehicles and other nuisances caused by petrol vehicles, does he not think this is really a gross exaggeration?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Candidly, I have not had any number of complaints, and I am having the matter inquired into.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is not the Minister aware that a year ago I put a question on the same lines to the Minister of Transport, and that in reply to my question he said he was leaving the matter in the hands of the Secretary of State, because it was his business to deal with these wagons that travel through London?

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the smoke and steam let out by these great steam tractors cause a regular fog on the roads?

ACCIDENTS, SHOREDITICH.

Mr. THURTLE: 6.
asked the Home Secretary the number of traffic accidents, resulting in injury to persons or death, which have occurred in the Kingsland Road, at the point where this main road is joined by Pearson Street and Harman Street, Shoreditch, for the six months ending 30th June; and how many deaths have resulted from these accidents?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Two accidents, resulting in personal injury, have occurred at this point during the period in question. Three persons were injured, one fatally.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the Home Secretary be goad enough to use his influence with the police to take better precautions for the safety of the public at this point, because there is very strong local feeling on the matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will call their attention to the matter.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the East End of London there are many similar points where, owing to the defective or narrow construction of the streets, a succession of accidents occurs, and will he take some action to have these points scheduled and re-constructed?

Mr. SPEAKER: That matter does not arise here.

MOTOR TAXATION.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 18.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the feeling in the country in favour of a tax on petrol instead of a tax on horse-power and in view of his statement in last year's Budget, he will appoint a committee to go into the whole question of the possibilities of a petrol tax?

Mr. McNEILL: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the replies which my right hon. Friend gave on the 30th June to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank).

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the Financial Secretary aware that there is a strong feeling about this form of taxation; that in the United States all the provincial States have adopted it and are drawing a very big revenue from it;
and that they have overcome the objections and difficulties raised by the officials of his Department and have proved them to be without foundation.

Mr. McNEILL: I am aware of these circumstances, but they do not affect the answer.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If this be pressed will it not end in both a horse-power tax and a petrol tax?

Sir J. NALL: If people go on talking about a petrol tax, are they not likely to get it in addition to the other?

OMNIBUSES, DARLINGTON (INQUIRY).

Mr. SHEPHERD: 21.
asked the Minister of Transport when the Report will be issued of the inquiry recently held into the dispute between the borough of Darlington and a local omnibus company?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): No Report wall be issued regarding this inquiry but in accordance with the Order of Court, I have settled and communicated to the parties, the terms upon which licences are to be granted.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (INDUSTRIAL DISEASES).

Mr. TINKER: 4.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that the miners are protesting against the description in the recent Order issued by him dealing with industrial diseases under the Workmen's Compensation Act, which contains the definition subcutaneous cellulitis or acute bursitis arising at or about the knee (beat knee), subcutaneous cellulitis or acute bursitis over the elbow (beat elbow), as they are of opinion that the word acute should be struck out; and will he give further consideration to this question?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Before issuing this Order I considered a request from the miners to omit the word "acute." This request, however, was not supported by any evidence, and as the Report published by the Medical Research Council showed that bursitis is not a disabling condition except when there is acute inflammation, I was unable to adopt the suggestion. I have received no further representations, and see no grounds at present for reconsideration.

Mr. TINKER: Arising out of the unsatisfactory answer—I realise it is difficult to discuss this matter by Question and Answer—I want to warn the right hon. Gentleman that I will raise the question on the Estimates, and I should like him to let me have the information upon which he has based this particular Order.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as far as this disease to the elbow and the knee is concerned, there are certain classes of work performed in the mines when, while it may not appear that the man is suffering very acute pain, the mere "touch" is torture?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I agree that the word "acute" is in and that, if the disease is acute, then there is pain to the touch and so forth, but, when there is no acuteness, my information is that it is not painful.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it sometimes happens that when a man is actually hurt and is in action, he may be suffering very great pain, though it may appear not to be acute when he is in the surgery undergoing examination?

Mr. TINKER: May I press upon the right hon. Gentleman to let me have the information we have asked for?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman says he is going to raise it on the Estimates, and as soon as my Estimates are put down, I will, of course, get all information and be prepared to give it.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman supply the hon. Member who has put down the question with a copy of the statement of the Medical Research Council on which he has based his Order?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That rather looks like supplying him with ammunition with which to shoot at me

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

STATISTICS.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of children between the ages
of 14 and 15 at public elementary and secondary schools, the estimated number at other schools, and the estimated number not at school?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): In the year 1925–26 the numbers of pupils in the age-group 14–15 in the grant-aided elementary and secondary schools were 164,410 and 62,632, respectively; there were also 5,056 pupils in this age-group attending other State-aided schools and institutions. I regret that I am unable to give corresponding figures for schools not in receipt of assistance from public funds. As regards the number not at school, I think the best indication I can give is that the number of pupils in the age-group 13–14 in grant-aided elementary schools in 1924–25 was 581,416. The number of children in the age-group 14–15 will, of course, fluctuate greatly in future years owing to fluctuations in the birth-rate, and in this connection I may refer my hon. Friend to page 17 of the Memorandum on the Board's Estimates for 1926, a copy of which I am sending him.

SCHOOL (ORGANISATION).

Mr. HARRIS: 8 and 10.
asked the President of the Board of Education (1) how many plans for new or reorganised schools approved in each of the last two educational years have provided for the traditional basis of boys, girls and infants, or mixed and infants; and how many have provided for schools organised with departments for junior children and senior children, respectively;
(2) whether amending Regulation No. 1 of 1925 for the building of public elementary schools is now in operation; and whether the suggestions as to the organisation of public elementary schools, contained in Circular 1350 (issued in January, 1925), are now incorporated in the Building Regulations?

Lord E. PERCY: I could not, without the expenditure of a disproportionate amount of time and labour, supply the hon. Member with information which would reliably indicate the extent to which proposals for new schools or for the reorganisation of existing schools are based on the principles outlined in Circular 1350, but I can assure him that full regard is paid to these principles in the consideration of individual proposals.
As regards the Building Regulations, I would refer him to paragraph 5 (d) of Circular 1375, a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. HARRIS: I do not want to trouble the right hon. Gentleman to give figures, but can he give some indication as to whether there has been a large number of instances where this Regulation has been carried out? Has it been on a large scale?

Lord E. PERCY: All I can say, is that I think the tendency to organise schools as senior and junior is steadily growing throughout the country. That is all I can say.

TEACHERS' SALARIES (SICK ABSENCE).

Mr. HARRIS: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the decision that teachers absent from school on account of ill-health for periods which involve a loss of pay are liable to have their salaries re-assessed and reduced is a decision of the Board of Education or of the Burnham Committee; and whether this decision applies to teachers working under the elementary, secondary and technical awards, respectively?

Lord E. PERCY: The decision, to which the hon. Member refers, is embodied in Section 11 of the Third Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Salaries of Teachers in Public Elementary Schools, a copy of which I am sending him. Historically, the decision was originally made by the Board in 1923, and it was subsequently accepted by the committee. The procedure for dealing with this matter under the Secondary and Technical Reports is somewhat different. I will furnish the hon. Member with the particulars if he so desires.

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY'S GALA (STAFFORDSHIRE).

Viscount SANDON: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that a circular inviting the closing of State elementary schools on the occasion of a co-operative society's gala has been issued by the Staffordshire education authority; and whether he will prohibit the closing of schools for such purposes?

Lord E. PERCY: My attention has been called to this matter. The closure of schools on particular days is within the discretion of the local authority and school managers, and is not a matter in which the Board intervene.

Viscount SANDON: Is it not contrary to high policy that factional bodies of this or any sort should be recognised by the State?

Lord E. PERCY: I do not see anything contrary to high policy or any other policy. I do not see why a gala organised by a co-operative society should be excluded from the discretion of the authority any more than a gala organised by any other society.

Viscount SANDON: Well, I do.

Mr. RILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in many of these towns the members of the co-operative society include half the population, and that this meets the convenience of that population?

Mr. PALING: Would not this holiday be included in the schedule of holidays for organised societies?

Lord E. PERCY: There is no schedule of organised societies.

Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that they are allowed a certain number of holidays in each year and that local authorities have to work within that schedule?

Lord E. PERCY: No.

Mr. SHEPHERD: As this was an important event in young children's lives, should they not have been allowed to attend such a gala?

SCHOOL CHILDREN (VISIT TO RUSSIA).

Sir F. HALL: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Education what action has been taken by the local education authorities concerned in connection with the absence from their respective schools of the six children who have gone to Russia to receive instructions in revolutionary propaganda work; and whether he has made any representations to these authorities on the matter?

Lord E. PERCY: I do not know whether any of the authorities concerned have taken any action in this matter. I have made no representations to them.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware who is bearing the cost of this expedition?

Lord E. PERCY: No.

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND INDUSTRY (RECOMMENDATIONS).

Mr. VIANT: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has considered the Report of the Committee on Education and Industry; and, if so, whether it is his intention to put into operation any of the recommendations suggested therein?

Lord E. PERCY: I am afraid I could not make a statement on this subject within the limits of an answer to a question. The Government's attitude towards these recommendations was explained in another place on 9th March, and a statement on one point was made in this House by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board on 24th March.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

INSTITUTIONS (CHILDREN).

Colonel DAY: 13.
asked the Minister of Health whether there have been any recent cases in which notices have been served by inspectors of his Department on guardians prohibiting the guardians keeping children in institutions which are under the control of the Ministry?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): My officers regularly draw the attention of boards of guardians to any instances in which they may find children retained in an institution contrary to the provisions of the Poor Law Institutions Order, 1913. It is not, however, any part of their duty to serve anything in the nature of formal notices on a board of guardians in this connection. An Order requiring a board of guardians to provide alternative and separate accommodation for the children receiving institutional relief from them was made by me in the case of one union last year.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the union?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Helston.

Colonel DAY: Is he aware that reports have appeared to the effect that the Minister of Health has served notices on the Cardigan Board of Guardians that 30 children under 14 years of age have to be removed from the workhouse; and will he make an investigation into the matter?

GISBOROUGH UNION (CASUALS).

Mr. SHEPHERD: 15.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that an inspector of his Department has recently informed the Gisborough Board of Guardians that they must not discharge casuals from the workhouse on Sundays; and whether this is in accordance with Regulations?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The inspector has informed the guardians that they should see that better compliance with the Regulations is enforced. The Casual Poor Act, 1882, and the Casual Poor (Relief) Order, 1925, provide that a casual may not discharge himself on Sunday unless there are special circumstances which, in the opinion of the master, require that he should be discharged on that day.

Mr. SHEPHERD: May I take it that boards of guardians have discretionary powers to keep these men in?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not a question of the board of guardians. It is within the discretion of the master of the workhouse.

SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION.

Mr. BARKER: 14.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons vaccinated in the years 1924, 1925, and 1926, and the number of deaths, if any, certified to be the result of vaccination in the years referred to?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate such particulars as are available in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the particulars:

No information is available of the total number of persons vaccinated in these years, but the following statement shows the number of certificates of successful
primary vaccination of children under 14 years of age received by the vaccination officers in England and Wales:


Calendar Year:






1924
…
…
…
401,765


1925
…
…
…
348,552


1926
…
…
…
358,245

The numbers of successful re-vaccinations performed at the cost of the rates were as follow:


Year ended 30th September:



1924
…
…
…
89,600


1925
…
…
…
40,939


1926
…
…
…
54,221

The following statement gives the numbers of deaths in these years classified to (a) vaccinia, and (b) other causes associated with vaccination:


Year


(a)
(b)


1924
…
…
1
3


1925
…
…
3
5


1926
…
…
1
1

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 16.
asked the Minister of Health the monthly return of the number of small-pox cases certified in England and Wales, including London, from January, 1927; and the number of districts in which these cases have occurred?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


Small-pox cases notified in England and Wales.



Cases notified.


During the 4 weeks ended:



29th January
2,178


27th February
1,808


During the 5 weeks ended: 



2nd April
2,170


During the 4 weeks ended:



30th April
1,364


28th May
1,202


During the 5 weeks ended:



2nd July
1,200

These cases occurred in 214 sanitary districts. The figures are subject to revision.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

AIR MINISTRY.

Mr E. BROWN: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that a non-service man with no flying
experience, whose employment prior to going to the Air Ministry had been at the Board of Education, was recently appointed to the post of Deputy-Director of Civil Aviation; whether he considers flying experience an essential qualification for such a position; and whether he will give an assurance that in filling the now vacant post of Deputy-Director of Civil Aviation in Egypt the post shall not be given to a non-service man, but to one who has actually been a flying officer?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): No new appointment has recently been made to a senior post in the Directorate of Civil Aviation at the Air Ministry, but there has been a certain measure of reorganisation and redistribution of the existing staff and duties, which have been accompanied by certain changes in nomenclature. The gentleman who now holds the appointment of Deputy-Director of Civil Aviation, the duties of which are administrative rather than technical, has for some years past been one of the senior officials of the Directorate of Civil Aviation, and I consider him fully qualified to carry out the duties of his appointment.
I may add that in addition to wide administrative experience he is, though not a pilot, well acquainted with the principal civil aviation routes of Europe, over many of which he has made frequent flights. As regards the last part of the question, I am not clear to what appointment the hon. Member refers, but it would appear to be one which falls within the province of the Egyptian Government and not of my Department.

Mr. BROWN: Is the Under-Secretary aware that a number of service men have an idea that the policy of the Minister of Air is biased against them, and can he give us an assurance that service will not be counted against people making application for posts of this kind? Does he not think it is essential, for posts of this kind, that men should have actual experience in the air, whether civil or military, before he takes charge of a branch in which young lives are at stake?

Sir P. SASSOON: It is difficult to answer so many questions at once. This is not a new appointment, as the gentleman has been in the Air Ministry for
several years, and it is only due to the reorganisation that he receives a different title.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the person in question cannot fly, why should he have this post?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Does reorganisation involve any reduction in administrative costs?

Sir P. SASSOON: We always hope so. And this reorganisation has been carried out with this particular object in view.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Can the Under-Secretary give us an assurance that in the Air Service, where so many short-service commissioned officers are being dismissed every year, that no administrative posts shall be filled by any but ex-flying officers?

Sir P. SASSOON: That does not apply in this case.

Captain GARRO-JONES: No, but I am asking whether he can give us an undertaking in the general sense.

Sir P. SASSOON: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put down a Question.

MINISTRIES (RE-ORGANISATION).

Mr. LAWSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has reconsidered the previously announced policy of the Government in respect to the Ministry of Transport, Mines Department, and the Department of Overseas Trade; and whether he will make a statement on the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the replies which I have already given to questions on this subject.

Mr. LAWSON: Is there any truth in the statements made very definitely in the Press that there is a decision to retain the Ministry of Transport and the Overseas Trade Department?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen those statements myself, and I should advise the hon. Member to wait until we make an announcement.

Mr. PALING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a discussion on
the Mines Department is due to take place at an early date—I think next week—and can he see his way to make a statement before that discussion takes place?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will bear that in mind.

Mr. HARRIS: Will the present Ministers still be in charge of these Departments in the Autumn Session; and are we still to send communications to them then?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is rather a hypothetical question. I think it is probable that whatever legislation may be required will be taken in the Autumn Session.

Mr. LAWSON: Before any decision is made to dissolve the Mines Department, will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the grave conditions prevailing in the mining industry and the need for a separate Department?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the fact that, even to-day, we are unable to get necessary information concerning the mines of Great Britain?

Mr. R. MORRISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate being in a position to make a full statement in regard to the three Departments before the House rises?

The PRIME MINISTER: That I think is extremely doubtful.

Sir J. NALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the overlapping between the Ministry of Transport and the Home Office in regard to the constantly recurring question of safety on the roads; and is there not urgent necessity that all matters concerning safety on the roads should be consolidated under the Home Office?

PRIME MINISTER: It is of course questions like that which take time.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the officers of these Departments are to be kept in prolonged suspense as to their future, and in view of that suspense will he not expedite his decision?

The PRIME MINISTER: We are being as quick as we can, and the disability to which the hon. and gallant Member refers is inevitable in the circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

VEGETABLE OILS (EXPORTS TO PORTUGAL).

Mr. LUMLEY: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value and amount of the exports of edible vegetable oils from this country to Portugal in each of the last three years?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The exports of edible vegetable oils refined in the United Kingdom and consigned to Portugal amounted in 1924 to 53 tons, valued at £2,750; in 1925 to 63 tons valued at £3,006; and in 1926 to 1,007 tons valued at £41,757.

Mr. LUMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this welcome increase in the activity of this industry will be seriously affected by the recent flag discrimination decree of the Portuguese Government?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That was dealt with yesterday, and strong representations were made to the Portuguese Government, but, I regret to say, without success.

MOTOR SPIRIT (IMPORTS).

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the figures for the amount of petrol imported into this country in 1913 and 1926, respectively; and what amounts came from the Russian oilfields in 1913 and 1926, respectively?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: 101 million gallons of motor spirit were imported into Great Britain and Ireland in 1913, of which 14.9 million gallons were consigned from Russia. In 1926, 562 million gallons were imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of which 55.2 million gallons were consigned from the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.

Mr. PALING: May I ask whether the recent propaganda against the consumption of Russian oil has had any effect on the importation of oil into this country?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no statistical information.

BURNHOUSE, CARRON, STIRLING-SHIRE.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the long-promised repairs necessary to make the Burnhouse, Carron, Stirlingshire, habitable have not yet been commenced; and whether he can take any steps to expedite matters?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I understand that the contract for the repairs to be carried out on this house has been placed with a contractor. The work has not yet, however, been commenced owing to the inclement weather making it impracticable to transport the material to this out-of-the-way site.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

INFANTRY AND CAVALRY SOLDIERS (COST).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for War the approximate annual cost to the State of a soldier, infantry and cavalry, respectively, when with the colours and stationed in Great Britain?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The hon. and gallant Member will find on pages 264 and 265 of the current Army Estimates an estimate of the annual effective cost of a cavalry regiment and an infantry battalion when stationed at home and the establishment to which the estimate relates.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these figures would include among other expenses which I do not wish to reckon the officers' pay and that kind of thing, and could he not send me, later on, the exact figures for which I have asked him?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I want to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the information for which he has asked, but if I were to tell him that the approximate figure is £125 a year I would mislead him, because in the case of the cavalry soldier the cost of the horse must be taken into account. If he looks at the pages, to which I have
referred him, he will see that the whole cost has been set out in detail, and he can take out and use what he likes of the various figures.

TANKS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for War what types of tanks are in use and under construction for His Majesty's Army; and what is the first cost of each type?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The uresent standard tanks in use are the Mark I, Mark IA and Mark II light tanks. The average cost of these three marks varies slightly, but, excluding the guns, is approximately £7,700. Apart from these, there are some tanks of wartime manufacture which are gradually being replaced as opportunity offers. It would not be in the public interest to give information as to the types of tanks which are under trial and have not yet been adopted into the service.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a tank of small size known as the Merlin Morris tank costs £400?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am aware that there are some one-man and two-men tanks, and they are being tried out now. I do know their cost.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

MARITIME STATES, KATHIAWAR PENINSULA (CONFERENCE).

Colonel DAY: 31.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has received a report of the conference which took place at Mount Abu, on 27th June, between the representatives of the Government of India and the maritime States in the Kathiawar Peninsula; whether he will give the names of the States chiefly concerned which were represented at the conference; whether any decisions were arrived at; and can he make a statement?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): My Noble Friend is aware that at the recent conference held at Mount Abu an agreement
was not reached, but as a full report of the proceedings has not yet been received I am not in a position to make a statement. The States chiefly concerned were Nawangar, Morvi, Junagadh, Porbandar and Baroda.

Colonel DAY: Is the Noble Lord in a position to say if the Report will be published?

Earl WINTERTON: I am not in a position to state at the moment whether the Report of the proceedings will be published or not.

BRITISH COLONIES (AGENTS).

Mr. SPOOR: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India are at present considering the proposal to appoint agents in British Colonies like Kenya, Trinidad, and others, to which Indians have emigrated and settled in large numbers, on the same lines as the appointment of the right hon. V. S. Srinivasa Sastri to South Africa?

Earl WINTERTON: Agents have been appointed in Ceylon and British Malaya. I understand that the question of appointing agents in certain other Colonies is under consideration of the Government of India.

SEAMEN'S UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.

Mr. SPOOR: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what action has been taken by the Government of India in regard to the recommendation of the Geneva International Labour Conference of 1920, urging the introduction of a system of seamen's unemployment insurance?

Earl WINTERTON: The recommendation was laid before the Indian Legislature, which recommended that no action should be taken.

TEXTILE TARIFF BOARD.

Mr. SNELL: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many meetings were held by the special tariff board on the textile industry; how long the inquiry lasted; and whether any of the principal suggestions either of the majority or of the minority Reports have been accepted by the Government of India?

Earl WINTERTON: The number of meetings was 40. The inquiry began on the 5th July, 1926, and the Report was signed on the 21st January, 1927. The Government of India have announced their intention of introducing in the next Session of the Legislative Assembly legislation for the removal of duties on machinery and certain mill stores. They have declined to accept the recommendation that the spinning of the higher counts of yarn should be stimulated by the grant of a bounty, and have decided to propose no alteration in the import duties on cotton manufacture. Other recommendations of the tariff board are under consideration. A copy of the Report and of a Resolution published by the Government of India containing their decisions will be placed in the Library of the House.

STATUTORY COMMISSION.

Mr. SNELL: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the questionnaire which has been circulated amongst European Government officials in India, in which they are asked to indicate before the sitting of the Statutory Commission whether they have any intention of resigning their services and retiring on proportionate pensions, it is the intention of the Government to appoint the Statutory Commission in time to sit during the next cold weather?

Earl WINTERTON: I know nothing of any such questionnaire; I am not in a position to make any statement about the Commission in extension of what I have said in reply to previous questions and in my speeches on the Whitsuntide Adjournment on the 2nd June and in Committee of Supply on the 17th June.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has received any representation on the subject of the Statutory Commission on Indian Constitutional Reforms from a body called the Indian Farmers' and Peasants' Federation, Ahmadabad; and, if so, whether he will give the terms of the representation?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, Sir. The representation urged including in the personnel of the Commission a person with intimate knowledge of the needs of agricultralists, and instructing the Commission to secure a scheme of Government
which should be not merely responsible, but also should conserve the needs and interests and the educational, economic, social and political well-being of the Indian peoples.

OPIUM CONSUMPTION (BENGAL).

Mr. THURTLE: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Opium Committee recently appointed to make a special investigation regarding the consumption of opium in Bengal is taking evidence only with regard to the consumption of opium in that province; and whether it is proposed to appoint similar committees to deal with the consumption of opium in other provinces?

Earl WINTERTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My Noble Friend has no information regarding the appointment of similar Committees by other Provincial Governments.

BRITISH ARMY OFFICERS.

Mr. THURTLE: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the, Government have reached a decision on the proposed arrangement whereby British officers whose units are not borne on Indian establishment but who are in staff or extra-regimental employ in India will, on the termination of their employment in this capacity, be returned to England, and, notwithstanding that they may be temporarily attached, pending absorption, to units on the Imperial establishment, their pay and allowances will continue to be borne on Indian revenues; and whether the proposed scheme contains any provision for the repayment to the Government of India by His Majesty's Government for the services received in cases where British officers returned to this country under the scheme are temporarily attached to Imperial units?

Earl WINTERTON: It has recently been decided that such officers, if further temporary employment cannot be found for them in India, shall be sent home for attachment to their own units. This does not affect the incidence of their pay for which Indian revenues have always been liable until a vacancy occurs in the establishment of their unit in which they can be employed.

Mr. THURTLE: Am I to take it from that reply that officers may be employed upon duties here at home, while the cost of such officers has to be borne by the Indian revenues?

Earl WINTERTON: I think I can, without trespassing on the time of the House, explain the situation. An officer lent by the British Army to the Government of India for staff duty, when he has ceased to hold those duties is often surplus to the establishment of the unit to which he belongs. Therefore, he cannot be absorbed in that unit until there is a vacancy. The salaries of these officers are, therefore, chargeable to the revenues of India; but it is cheaper to the revenues of India that the officers should come to this country than that they should remain in India where they receive higher rates of pay. Consequently the change results in an economy for the finances of India. It does not impose any further burden, but has rather the opposite effect.

ACCOUNTANTS AND AUDITORS (STATUS).

Mr. WALLHEAD: 43.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India are at present giving consideration to the question of improving the professional status of accountants and auditors in India; and when a decision on this matter may be expected?

Earl WINTERTON: I have no information, but if the hon. Member has any suggestion to make, the question of communicating it to the Government of India will be considered.

PALESTINE (MAVROMMATIS CONCESSION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Greek Government has submitted a case to the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague concerning the Mavrommatis concession for the supply of water and electric power in Palestine by the British Government in its capacity of mandatory in Palestine; whether His Majesty's Government is entering an appearance at the Court; and whether the Court is recognised as having jurisdiction in this case?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. I am not at present in a position to reply to the last part of the question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman let me know when he is able to reply to the last part of the question?

Mr. AMERY: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

COMMAND PAPER (SIGNATURE).

Mr. PONSONBY: 46.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will explain why the despatch printed on pages 28 and 29 of Command Paper 2895, Russia No. 3 (1927), appears over the signature of J. Ramsay MacDonald, in view of the fact that the original document was signed by a Departmental head in the Foreign Office in the absence of the Secretary of State; and why, if this alteration was to be made, the consent of an ex-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was not obtained before his name was made use of in this way?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): It is the ordinary routine practice of the Foreign Office in printing, either for Departmental use or publication, a note or despatch purporting to be written by the Secretary of State, to print his signature, without consultation with him, even though the document may have been signed by an Under-Secretary or head of Department on his behalf.
The usual practice was followed in this case, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, entirely agrees that this was a mistake. The special circumstances of the case called for exceptional treatment and my right hon. Friend desires me to express to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition his regret that this was not noticed at the time of printing. He trusts that this explanation will remove any annoyance caused to the right hon. Gentleman by the oversight.

Mr. PONSONBY: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his answer, may I
ask whether it would be possible for the correct signature to this document to be printed in a re-issue of this Paper in order that those who are referring to this document in future may see precisely what the circumstances were?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Certainly, in any reprint that will be done.

Colonel DAY: Is it not possible, in the case of those books which have not been already distributed, for a copy of the question and answer to be put in the back of the book?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think the question and answer in this House will be quite sufficient notice.

BRITISH SUBJECTS.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 47.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the number of British subjects at present in prison in Russia and as to whether any British subjects have been put to death since the breaking off of relations?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: So far as I am aware, no British subjects are at present imprisoned in Russia, nor have any British subjects been executed since the suspension of relations.

Mr. E. BROWN: Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House through what channels he gets his information now?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: We are represented, as the hon. Gentleman knows, by the Norwegian Government, and we get our information through them.

Mr. BROWN: May I ask if the hon. Member has had any recent information bearing upon this point?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, it is recent information that I have given to the House.

Mr. BROWN: May I ask how recent? What is the latest date?

Mr. SPEAKER: Any question as to the date ought to be put down.

Mr. BROWN: With all deference, Sir, this is a very important matter, especially to all of us who represent constituencies on the east coast, where they are very
much disturbed because of this breaking-off of relations. We would like to know what is the latest date of the information which the Minister has given to us.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the question is so important, it had better be promptly put on the Paper.

Mr. BROWN: I will do that.

Mr. THURTLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Norwegian Government are the only source the British Government have at present of obtaining information from Russia?

HON. MEMBERS: Ah!

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have already explained that the Norwegian Government are representing British interests in Russia, and that is the source of our information.

Mr. PALING: Is it usual in cases where diplomatic relations are broken off to use the Secret Service for getting this information?

HUNGARY AND RUMANIA.

Sir ROBERT GOWER: 48.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if there is any prospect of the Hungarian-Rumanian question now before the League of Nations, and committed to him with the Japanese and Chilian representatives for inquiry, being reported upon to the Council at its next session; if not, what is the cause of the delay; and, if there is any difficulty in the presentation of a Report, whether steps will be taken to submit the matter forthwith to the Permanent Court of International Justice?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Committee over which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State presided thought it necessary that further time should be given for the representatives of both States to consult their Governments, and they therefore advised an adjournment until September. The Council approved their proposal, and the committee will make a further Report in September. It would be improper, as it is in fact impossible, to say what that Report is likely to contain.

ROYAL NAVY (WELFARE REQUESTS).

Mr. ROBINSON: 49.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many of the 58 requests put forward by the 1926 Welfare Conference were approved; how many were not approved; how many were partially approved; the number still under consideration; and if he will furnish particulars of the general requests that were approved, with an estimate of the cost?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): Of the 58 requests, three were approved, 39 were not approved, two were partly approved and eight are under consideration. The replies to the remaining six requests, namely numbers 3, 20, 21, 31, 33 and 50, cannot be classified.

No cost was involved by the granting of three of the general requests, which were:—

16. That the wearing of lanyards during working hours be discontinued.

32. That bread should be supplied to destroyers with the Fleet from ships equipped with a bakery. This applies particularly to destroyers serving in northern waters.

53. That the Admiralty approach the Board of Trade with a view to ascertaining whether the certificate of the higher technical test in navigational subjects can be given a definite professional value under the Board of Trade.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can inform us what business is to be taken next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday—Supply: Committee.

On Monday the Foreign Office Vote will be taken, and there will be a debate on Disarmament during the day.

On Tuesday, the Department of Mines Vote, on which the mining situation will be discussed.

On Wednesday, the Ministry of Pensions Vote.

The Vote for Thursday is not yet settled, but that and the business for Friday will be announced later.

On each day small Orders will be taken as and when occasion arises.

Ordered,
That other Government business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]

NAVY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1925–26.

Resolved, That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider the surpluses and deficits upon Navy and Air Grants for 1925–26 and the application of surpluses to meet Expenditure not provided for in the Grants for that year.—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Ordered, That the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy and Air Departments, which were presented upon the 4th March and 23rd February last respectively, be referred to the Committee.—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords].

(Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

(No Standing Orders applicable),—

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Major Elliot; and had appointed in substitution: The Solicitor-General for Scotland.

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,

That they have agreed to,—

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Sheffield Corporation Tramways Provisional Order Bill,
Cardiff Corporation Tramways Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Essex, Port Talbot, Shoreham-by-Sea, and Southend-on-Sea." [Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 11) Bill [Lords.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 11) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 169.]

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

Further considered in Committee, [Progress, 5th July].

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Repeal of Sugar Duties.)

"As from the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, the duties chargeable upon sugar, molasses, glucose, and saccharin imposed by Sections four and five of the Finance Act, and the First Schedule to that Act shall ceare."—[Mr. Dalton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. DALTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause, which stands in the name of myself and other hon. Members, is moved for the purpose of repealing the sugar duties.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: On a point of Order. I understand that the hon. Member is moving his new Clause. If it be desired, may we take the discussion on the refined sugar Clause at the same time, or will that come up later?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That raises rather a different point, and, strictly speaking, the question would only be in order on the separate Clause; but, if it be for the convenience of the Committee that the two questions should be discussed together, that might be done.

Mr. HANNON: Do you mean, Sir, that after taking part in the Debate on this Clause I can move the new Clause later on?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member took part in the Debate on this Clause and referred to the question raised in the other Clause definitely, I should not allow him to repeat his argument at a later stage.

Mr. HANNON: I should only formally move the Clause.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member would like to have a Division, he could do so.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): May I ask, Sir, whether you have considered whether the Clause to which the hon. Member refers would be out of order?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have considered it, and I thought it was not out of order.

Mr. DALTON: This Clause is a straightforward proposition for the repeal of the Sugar Duty, Which, in our view, is the most indefensible item in the whole range of the British tax system as it exists to-day. I would remind the Committee that since the War there has only been one occasion on which a substantial reduction has been made in the Sugar Duty. That was in 1924, when the Labour Government, was in office, and when my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) was Chancellor of the Exchequer. On that occasion a large reduction was made, of about two-thirds of the pre-existing Sugar Duty, with very beneficial results, both upon the price of sugar and upon employment in the sugar industry, to which I shall make a further reference later. It may be permissible to refer here to a speech which my right hon. Friend the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer made some little while ago, in which he stated that, had the Labour Government continued in office for a second year, they would, in that year, have swept away the whole of the remaining Sugar Doty, and also the other duties upon food which still figure in our financial system. I think that the people of this country, when the time comes to judge of the comparative financial policies of the present Government and of its predecessor, will be interested to note that, whereas the Labour Government were pledged to complete their work of sweeping away the taxes on food, the present Government have done practically nothing in that direction.
The Sugar Duty is a duty to which we take objection, in the first place, because it is a very heavy tax upon a necessary of life. Sugar, however, is not only a necessary of life in the ordinary sense, but is also an ingredient and a raw material in a great number of other forms of manufacture in this country. A very large number of persons are employed in the industries connected with the making
of jam, chocolate, and the large number of other branches of economic life into which sugar enters as a very important ingredient in the process of manufacture. One might even go a little further a field, and point out that the glass bottle making industry, and a number of others, are very closely connected with the demand for sugar, and that, consequently, the effect of maintaining this tax upon sugar, and of keeping up the price of sugar as a result, has the effect of limiting consumption and limiting employment in a large number of industries making foods and other things into which sugar enters. We have already had the experience, as a result of the reduction made by my right hon. Friend the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the financial results of a reduction of this burden upon the consumption of sugar. As a result of the reduction, the price of sugar fell very substantially, and the consumption of sugar very greatly increased. The consumption of sugar at the present time is only fractionally above what it was in 1013, before the War; but, before the Sugar Duty was reduced in the 1924 Finance Bill, the consumption of sugar had fallen very much below the figure at which it used to stand before the War.
It is very easy to find examples of the way in which that restriction of consumption comes about under the pressure of this heavy tax. It is well known that many housewives who used before the War, when sugar was cheap, to make their own jam, have been unable to do so as a result of the increase in the price of sugar. That is one illustration of the way in which the demand for sugar is limited, and the way in which, incidentally, the demand for fruit is also limited. If it were desired to help British agriculture, and particularly fruit growing, a very excellent way of doing it would be to sweep away the Sugar Duty. Cheaper sugar would stimulate a very wide range of industry and a large number of uses of sugar which cannot now be carried as far as is desirable owing to the very heavy burden of the tax. In 1913, the Sugar Duty amounted to only 1s. 10d. per cwt. At the present time, even after the reduction that was made in the Budget of 1924, the duty amounts is 11s. 8d. per cwt., and, even allowing for the rebate of 4s. 3d. on Empire sugar, Which, incidentally, only amounts to some 20 per cent. of the total supply, the lower
preferential rate on sugar is still 7s. 5d. per cwt., as against 1s. 10d. pre-War. Consequently, the preferential rate is more than four times the pre-War rate—and I repeat that that applies only to 20 per cent. of the sugar supply of this country—and the full rate is more than six times the rate prevailing before the War. There has been a more than sixfold increase, even after the reduction that was carried out in 1924. I would like, by way of comparison, to point out that the burden of Income Tax and Super-tax, about which so much is heard in these Debates, has not, even in the case of the largest incomes, increased six-fold as compared with the pre-War figure.
The increase in the burden upon the sugar consumer in terms of the duty is unprecedentedly high, and is so high as to be quite unjustifiable at the present time. The burden which is imposed by this duty has been investigated by the Colwyn Committee, and it has been found that the payment which has to be made in respect of this duty by an average family of five persons is somewhere in the neighbourhood of £2 5s. per annum as compared with a corresponding burden of only 6s. per annum in 1913. It is, of course, clear that this duty falls most heavily upon those who have the smallest incomes, and upon those working-class families with the largest number of young children. It is a tax which falls most heavily upon those who are least able to bear the burden. The Colwyn Committee, having examined the mattes in great detail, came to this conclusion.
We consider that the Sugar Duty is relatively high"—
Even in the financial needs of the present time—
and that, if any relief of taxation is found possible in the next few years, it should be applied first in reduction of this duty.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in past speeches in this House, has thrown out a hint that he would look not unfavourably upon a reduction of this duty if the finances were available. I should be interested to hear whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury this afternoon can hold out any hope of a reduction in this duty as, at any rate, one of the first reductions which the Government will make if they are in a position to do so.

Sir BASIL PETO: Would the hon. Gentleman say what is the date of the quotation which he has just given?

Mr. DALTON: The Report was published a few months ago. Perhaps I did not explain that I was referring to the Colywn Committee on National Debt and Taxation. Its Report came out only a few months ago—

Major HILLS: It was signed in November of last year.

Mr. DALTON: It was signed in November of last year, but was not, I think, published until a month or two afterwards. The figures quoted in the Colwyn Report are the figures up to and including last year. As I have said, I trust that the Financial Secretary may hold out some hope of a reduction of this duty at an early date. We must, of course, accept the ordinary mechanical refusal to expect this proposed new Clause on the ground that it would cost a considerable number of millions to the Revenue. Our view is that, although the finances of the country have been reduced to a state of considerable disorder by the present Government, even in spite of that disorder there should be a readjustment of taxation, including this abolition of the Sugar Duty which we are demanding on the grounds which I have been putting before the Committee, and that any gap in the Revenue should be made up by increasing other taxes or by imposing new taxes of a less objectionable and less damaging character to trade and employment than the Sugar Duty to which we are now taking objection. We do not, of course, expect the Financial Secretary to accept that view, but we shall press this Motion to a Division, in order to emphasise the very strong objection that we feel to this particular tax, and in order to give further evidence that the Labour party, when it is next in a position to direct the finances of this country, will, as the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said, make one of its first changes in the direction of completely sweeping away this heavy burden upon this very important necessity of life.

Mr. HANNON: I do not rise to support the new Clause but to call attention to the very serious situation in which the sugar refiners of this country find
themselves, and to ask my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to take into consideration the extent to which some measure of relief might be given to them in the present Finance Bill. The new Clause, "Reduced duty on sugar refined in the United Kingdom," which stands in the name of myself and the names of several of my hon. Friends on this side, seeks to have the sugar refined in this country put upon the same basis as the sugar coming into this country from the Empire, to the extent of one-third of its value. When special treatment was provided for sugar grown in this country, I took the opportunity of calling attention to the disadvantages which were inflicted upon the sugar refiners in this country, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture very strongly resented any concession of the kind being sought at that time.
We have in this country a large number of important centres, notably Greenock, Liverpool and the City of London, where a considerable body of employment has been found for a long time in the manufacture of refined sugar. Under the provisions of the Finance Act of 1925, the subsidies on sugar grown in this country were permitted to go through its entire series of processes until it became refined sugar. We sought at that time to induce His Majesty's Government to allow the subsidy to apply only to raw sugar which could subsequently be refined in the existing sugar refineries in this country; but the Government, in their wisdom, would not accept that proposal. The result is, that very grave unemployment has arisen in the centres where sugar refining was an industry of substantial importance. I see the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir Godfrey Collins) present. He, of all Members of this House, has a right to say to the Government that a definite grievance has been imposed upon a large number of his constituents under the operations of the present duties governing sugar. My information is—the hon. Member will correct me if I am wrong—that in Greenock which at one time was a sugar city, and much of the prosperity of Greenock has been derived from the manufacture of sugar, out of five very large factories in that ancient, distinguished Scottish Burgh which has been identified with the march
of Scottish progress and Scottish economic development for a long period of time, employing 3,000, 4,000 and 5,000 people, only two are struggling against grave adversity to keep their doors open for the employment of a small number of workpeople. I do not think that an injury of that kind should be inflicted upon any body of people in this country.
No doubt, the Financial Secretary has had his attention drawn to the serious situation created in the East End of London, in the case of Tate and Lyle's sugar factory. At one swoop last year through the stress of economic exigencies a vast number of people were thrown out of employment. If the incidence of taxation had been adjusted on the lines suggested in the new Clause which I hope to move, that unemployment would have been avoided. No one in this House or outside has any fault to find with the policy of the Government in assisting the production of home-grown sugar in this country.

Mr. THURTLE: Yes.

Mr. HANNON: I believe the hon. Member opposite would object to the existence of the equator, if he could find any reason for objection. I can hardly conceive anything coming from this side of the House, in any circumstances, to which he could not find some objection. What is happening is, that not merely have sugar refineries been forced out of existence, not merely is there a continual widening of the range of unemployment in connection with the production of sugar in these old-established industries, but the sugar refiner, because he largely depends upon the raw sugar from Imperial sources of supply, is actually made the tax collector by the Inland Revenue without getting any consideration for it in return. There is, I think, some misunderstanding in the minds of many people that some measure of preference has been given to the sugar refiner here because he is employed in the capacity of paying the preference on Imperial imported sugar. That is not so. I am informed that the sugar refiners of this country have sometimes as much as £750,000 of their own money paid over in the form of Imperial preference, and they do not get one single penny interest on that money from the Treasury in consideration of the part they play in collecting it.
I would not bring any complaints against my own Government if I could possibly avoid it. I hope that I have always been, and I hope that I shall always be, a very loyal party man. Of course, I recognise the difficulty of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary when he replies. He will say, "You take £1,400,000 away from the Revenue." That, in the mouth of the Chancellor of Exchequer or my right hon. Friend, would be a very forcible reply. But we have to consider whether it is not better to sacrifice some small measure of revenue to make some contribution towards the continuity of industry rather than always make the pretext of collecting revenue at the expense of opportunities for the employment of the people. It is of far greater consequence to our economic stability to make a sacrifice of revenue, or even sometimes to pay a subsidy, rather than see our people kept out of employment for prolonged periods. In the East End of London, in Liverpool and in Greenock there are to-day thousands of people who would have the opportunity of going back to their ordinary work in the sugar refining industry if the new Clause which I have placed upon the Order Paper were to be accepted by the Government.
4.0 p.m.
We on this side of the House are sometimes accused of taking no interest in the promotion of the welfare of the working classes. I hold that we on this side are the real protagonists of the interests of the working classes. Whenever we make a suggestion on economic policy, it is always with a view to increasing the opportunities for employment, and raising the standard of living. In the new Clause to which I have referred, as in all the proposals we have made with regard to safeguarding the industries of the people of this country, we have the same purpose in view, namely, to give the people a more hopeful outlook by continuity of employment, and I think His Majesty's Government, in a case of this kind, ought to examine carefully whether it is not better, from the point of view of the nation, to forgo a comparatively small amount of revenue if, in so doing, they restore to employment a large number of people, who will have increased spending power, and thus enlarge the opportunity of collecting more revenue. It is a very
serious position. All of us who are engaged in trying to promote industry in this country from day to day, are more and more depressed at the struggle with which the British manufacturers are faced in their own market, as well as in every corner of the world's markets outside, and, certainly, when we have the opportunity of giving the British manufacturer in any branch of enterprise a fair opportunity in his own market, we ought to do all we possibly can to assist him in that direction.
Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend and His Majesty's Government to consider whether, in this case, we have not made a reasonable proposal affecting the daily bread of a large number of people, and whether, notwithstanding the embarrassment of a loss of revenue, my right hon. Friend will see the propriety of doing a really good day's work by restoring an ancient industry, which has been associated with the march of British enterprise for many generations, and so give the opportunity of a large volume of employment to a large number of people. I hope my right hon. Friend will take that into his careful, thoughtful and sympathetic consideration.

Mr. McNEILL: The hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading of this Clause did not even attempt to camouflage its academic nature. He did not pretend for a moment—I do not blame him for it—that it is a practical proposal. He made some interesting observations on the principles of taxation, but the hon. Gentleman and the Committee realise that the Motion can have no relation to the finances of the year, because if this Clause were put into the Bill, the loss to the Revenue in the present year would be £11,500,000, and, in a full year, about £19,000,000. Supposing the hon. Member were to succeed in carrying this Clause, the results would be positively startling. First of all, it would completely upset the whole of the present year's Budget as proposed by my right hon. Friend. The consequence would be that Parliament, first of all, would have to find another Government. It would then have to start an entirely fresh Budget, framed entirely de novo, and, as a small corollary to all that, the House would have to sit, I suppose, into
the late autumn in order to carry through the necessary legislation. The hon. Member knows that as well as I do, and that is why in moving this Clause he told us that he had no expectation that it would be carried. The hon. Gentleman told us that his right hon. Friend the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer had largely reduced the Sugar Duty, and that he had declared the other day that if he had only stayed in office a little longer, he would have still further reduced it, and made an announcement as to what he would do when next he got the opportunity, I confess that I have now been long enough a Member of this House to take rather a cynical view of that sort of statement. I do not attach very great weight to anything, that is said as to what will be done in other circumstances which may never happen, and I am always a little sceptical when I hear a right hon. Gentleman in opposition say what he will do when he gets the opportunity, which may or may not occur and when he says it in a form which he thinks will be very attractive in the constituencies.
The hon. Gentleman used an argument as regards this duty on sugar which, of course, always crops up when these matters are discussed, when he said the tax falls particularly heavily on the poorest classes. As I said the other clay, that is true of all taxes. You cannot put on any tax which is not more difficult for a poor loan to pay than for a rich man. It is a platitude. You may put a tax, of course, upon one section of the population and not upon another section, but if you put on any tax which is paid by the people at large, it is more onerous on the poorest class of people than it is upon the richest. But that merely in itself is a proposition that ought to have very little value in this connection, because the burden borne by one taxpayer as against another does not depend upon one particular tax, and it is not fair, and it is fallacious, to argue upon one particular tax isolated from the rest. What you have to look at is how the total taxation of the country borne by the poor, or the rich, or the well-to-do, or the moderately well-to-do, compares over the whole field of taxation. Of course, it is obviously true that the very poor housewife, in regard to sugar alone, is much more heavily hit than a millionaire by the sugar duty; but it
does not follow that a person with an income of £100 a year is more heavily taxed than a man with £400 or £500 a year. You have to find out what is the total taxation borne by each, and, as I say, it is always fallacious to use this argument with regard to one tax alone. The hon. Gentleman attaches importance to what the Colwyn Committee has said on this matter; and I want to read the passage he read with slightly different emphasis. This is what the Colwyn Committee said:
 We have expressed the view that the food duties, even as reduced by the Finance Act. 1924, must still exercise some adverse effect on the standard of living of the poor.
Of course, that is true:
 We consider that the Sugar Duty is relatively high.
That is the word to which the hon. Gentleman gave particular emphasis. Then he rather slurred over what followed:
and that, if any relief in taxation is found possible in the next few years, it should be applied first in reduction of this duty.
The hon. Member cannot submit the authority of the Colwyn Committee for proposing here and now the sweeping away of the sugar duties at the cost which, I have pointed out, it would mean to the Revenue at the present moment. That, really, is the only argument that the hon. Member advanced. I suppose the reason for not going further-I am grateful to him for being so brief, and I hope to follow his example in that respect; therefore, I do not want to blame him for not going further into a number of interesting subjects which are cognate to it—but I think the reason he confined himself to two statements was, as I have already said, that he realised it is only an academic point. He asked me whether I could give any assurance as to the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to this particular duty. I am afraid I am not in a position to say anything. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the hon. Gentleman may remember, in the course of the financial Debates of this year, did make a very definite pronouncement as to his desire to get rid, especially, of the Tea Duty, and that he had always—or, at any rate, for some years past, and I think he said "always" —had it as his ideal to have what is called a "free breakfast table."
Therefore, although I am not in a position to give any definite pledge as to what my right hon. Friend can do, I can repeat that that is what he has said, and I should assume that he would follow the advice of the Colwyn Committee with regard to the reduction of this duty, if and when the financial position of the country allowed it. But I must remind the hon. Gentleman, who made the observation that the finances of the country were in their present condition owing to the administration of my right hon. Friend, that there is another explanation which is given, as a rule from this side of the House, with regard to the present exigencies of our financial position. There were certain events which happened last year about which, I know, hon. Members opposite are tremendously sensitive. I do not know whether I should be guilty of any indelicacy if I were to refer to those events, but I notice how extremely sensitive hon. Members opposite are when any allusion is made to the disturbance of last year. Nevertheless, I must remind my hon. Friends on this side, at all events, that if it is impossible to listen to any demand for reduced taxation, we have our own views and explanation of the position in which we find ourselves, which are not quite the same as the views and explanation of those who put it all down to the iniquity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham. (Mr. Hannon) will move the New Clause which stands in his name, but I want to point out to him and to those hon. Friends who are associated with him in regard to that Amendment, which I know I cannot discuss now, that it would have a very different effect from that which they really intend. A reference has been made to the position in which sugar refiners find themselves at the present moment. I have looked into that matter as closely as I can, and I have concluded that their position is an exceedingly precarious one because they are faced with a very severe competition. I would like to say, however, that I do not think that the particular method which is suggested by my hon. Friend is one which it would be possible for the Government to accept, and I doubt whether my hon. Friends who are supporting that particular Amendment would press it upon the Government if
they fully realised its effect. One effect of that proposal would be that it would give an additional preference to sugar refined by British refiners, and it would absolutely upset the whole basis of Imperial preference. After all Imperial preference is a preference on the products of the British Empire, and what my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley is proposing is upon a totally different basis, namely, that preference should be given on products from everywhere.

Mr. HANNON: We should be prepared to confine our proposals to raw sugar from British sources.

Mr. MCNEILL: The method suggested by my hon. Friend alters the whole basis of our proposals. If on account of the position of the industry you were to propose that sugar coming from Cuba should be given something in addition to Imperial Preference, on what ground could you resist a demand made that chocolate makers should have a Preference on Brazilian cocoa under similar circumstances? That proposal is one which would be very expensive and it would upset our system of Imperial Preference. For that reason I cannot accept the Amendment which my hon. Friend has put down on the Paper. For the reasons I have stated, I think my hon. Friends have misconceived the situation, and if help of any sort is to be given to the British refining industry, it will have to be given by some other method.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: I do not think the Financial Secretary has in any way exaggerated the situation. He has told us that the sugar-refining industry is in a precarious condition. I believe I am correct in saying that the state of things in the sugar-refining industry in Great Britain to-day is unique in the annals of this country. The sugar-refining industry to-day has not only to compete with the natural competition of foreign countries, but it has also to compete with the sugar grown in this country as a direct result of the policy of His Majesty's Government. The subsidy given by the Government is practically equal in amount to the price of the raw sugar. Not only do those engaged in the sugar industry have the benefit of this large subsidy, but they also have the benefit of the Preference
Clause adopted by the present Government. In addition to all this, a number of fortunate firms engaged in this industry in this country have secured large sums of public money under the Trade Facilities Act, against the passing of which we strongly protested from the Liberal Benches. The result is that about 250,000 tons of sugar, refined by British factories, comes on the maket within three months.
That large quantity of home-grown sugar comes on the market and it competes with the firms who have produced sugar without any assistance from the Government. The amount of money paid in the shape of the sugar subsidy by the Government is about £4,000,000. So far as the refiners of sugar in this country are concerned, the situation is that they are faced with artificially-created competition, which has been brought about at the expense of the British taxpayer. The other form of competition is that brought about by Empire products. It is true that our Colonies are benefiting by this arrangement, but the people of this country are suffering in consequence. The system of Preference which has been adopted by the Government has thrown a large number of people out of work in Greenock, and that is not an exaggerated statement. I am sure hon. Members opposite will not be pleased to hear that statement. I know that when they started the policy of Preference they did not anticipate that it would have a result of that kind. The Financial Secretary has already stated that he cannot accept the method suggested by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), but there is another simple remedy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer can carry into effect if he likes. The House will remember that when the Corn Production Act became law a heavy burden was thrown on the taxpayers, and the Government in 1922 was obliged to repeal that Act because it was found to be too heavy a burden for the taxpayers of this country to bear.
With that very recent precedent before them, the Government would be quite justified in repealing the Beet Sugar Act of 1924, thus sweeping away the sugar subsidy which has cost the country £4,000,000 this year, and at the same time they would be placing the new sugar industry on the same footing as the
refining industry which has grown up under natural conditions in this country. The Government can well afford to abolish the sugar subsidy. I know I should be out of Order if I read to the Committee the profits which these particular firms have been able to make directly as a result of the policy of the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is being pressed for money from all sides, and here is a case which offers an opportunity for economy. Would not any Member of this House engaged in business feel a deep sense of injustice if the British Government were first of all to take money out of the pockets of the taxpayers to create artificial trading conditions for certain businesses in this country, and give other industries, particularly in our Dominions, special privileges in our home markets. I cannot believe there is a single Member of the Committee who does not agree with me when I say that that would be a great injustice.
But there is a much larger question than that. The hon. Member for Moseley is anxious to move his Amendment which he considered would protect the sugar refining industry. I would like to point out that we are suffering very much in Greenock from the policy of the Government. At one time we had five sugar refineries and they are now reduced to two. For these reasons I am not prepared to vote for protection for the sugar refining industry. We have to consider not only the interests of one part of the industry but the interests of the people of Great Britain. Here is one of the most striking examples of the policy of preference in operation, and it is clear that that policy is hurting not only our own people at the expense of the taxpayers but it is also hurting the industries of this country. We have often said that once you start a policy of protection, you are entering upon a slippery slope. How far you are going to slide down that slope I do not know. The Financial Secretary has truly stated that the Amendment we are discussing would cost over £1,000,000 if adopted, but why not reverse the policy which has been adopted by the Government and go back to the traditional policy of Great Britain under which the sugar refiners have built up their industry.
The Financial Secretary himself admits that these sugar refiners have been
placed in a precarious position by the policy of the Government. I am not prepared to vote for the Amendment now before the Committee. I know that the Corporation of Greenock and all allied interests are anxious for this Amendment to be carried, but if once you depart from the policy of Free Trade and give a temporary advantage to one industry, the door will be wide open, and you will be pledged to that policy in the future. In Greenock a large number of men and women have been thrown out of work by the policy of the Government. Through the subsidy the taxpayers have poured out £4,000,000 to the home-grown sugar industry in this country, and they have also given a preference to those unfortunate people in the Mauritius and the West Indies; but this Committee should not overlook the fact that the policy which has been adopted by the Government in regard to the sugar industry has thrown out of work a large number of people in this country.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) has put the ease of the British sugar refiners very forcibly and the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies has expressed doubts as to the accuracy of the statements put forward by the last speaker. I think on inquiry the right hon. Gentleman will find that in regard to the refineries in Greenock, three have been closed down within the last three years as a result of the policy adopted by the Government. I support the hon. Member for Greenock in his attacks upon the Government for the policy which they have adopted towards the old British sugar refinery industry. He takes the view that the Government's policy has helped to ruin them by subsidising other forms of sugar production and refinery in this country, and, secondly, that it has helped to further put the old refinery industries on the road to ruin, by giving preference to sugar from the Dominions which is not now confined to raw sugar but also includes manufactured sugar. Therefore the Government have given an unfair advantage to sugar from Mauritius and the Dominions and to the beet sugar industry in this country as against the old British sugar refining industry. Moreover, they have stabilised that preference for 10 years.
I hope now that I have made the position perfectly clear to the Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions. The statement of the hon. Member for Greenock is therefore true when he says that the development of the policy of Imperial Preference has so far as one can see led to unemployment in this country and assisted in the financial ruin of one of the oldest industries we have. I spent my boyhood days in the ancient City of Bristol which had one of the first sugar refining factories in this country as a result of its early connections with the West Indies. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was not going in your day!"] It was going when I was a boy at school. That closed down with other refineries as a result of world factors in the sugar producing and refining industries. But as a result of the Convention of 1903, a substantial part of the industry was saved and until recently there were five refineries in Greenock. Three have closed down in the last three years. The policy of Imperial Preference has destroyed any chance of the development of this old industry.
My position is this. I could not possibly accept the remedy suggested in the new Clause—(Reduced Duty on Sugar refined in the United Kingdom)—on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon). I have to take exactly the same view as the Member for Greenock. I am asked by a large Co-operative Society in Greenock to support that Amendment because of their interest in a local industry but from the point of view of national interests and national economy I must give my support to the Amendment we are discussing. On the one hand I am in the position of being asked by one local co-operative society of about 5,000 to 20,000 members to support the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Moseley, and on the other hand we have 5,250,000 consumers who oppose any attempt to take any more from them in the way of taxation which does not reach the Treasury as revenue. Therefore I cannot accept the Amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Moseley and his friends, but if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury could not do anything else, he could at least help the position of the British refining industry—although I do not suggest this
would be at all an adequate help—by removing the preference on refined sugar. There would then be some prospect for the old British industry. He may consider that this Government has pledged itself for 10 years to the stabilisation or the Imperial Preference to the Colonial sugar industry and from his interjection I observe the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies cares nothing at all for the misery and suffering of the unemployed in East London, Liverpool and Greenock because he is able—I use the right hon. Gentleman's own words—to make out an academic case for imperial Preference.
The real remedy is to put these people carrying on the refining industry in this country on an equality with regard to refined sugar with the rest of the Empire and not by increasing the tax to the consumer. The remedy lies in removing the preference now given to a particular section of the refined sugar industry and put British refiners a reasonable basis of competition with the other classes of the sugar refining industry in the Empire. The result of the Government's policy is that one part of the refining industry is in a state of great prosperity resulting from the Sugar Act of 1925 and the other part of the industry is almost in a state of starvation and decay. That is surely a very great reflection on the Government. Here are two or three instances of the prosperity of one section of the sugar industry resulting from the Government policy. The Cantley Beet Sugar Factory for 1926–27 has a disposable surplus of £246,000 of which they are placing to reserve £156,000 after paying 20 per cent. on the share capital.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: Is that free of Income Tax?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Yes, I understand so, after placing £156,000 to reserve. Here is the case of Ely which shows a surplus of £215,000 and after paying 12½ per cent. on the share capital free of tax, I understand they have placed £600,000 to reserve. The Ipswich factory has a surplus of £215,000 and after paying 12½ per cent. have placed £67,000 to reserve. So that this part of the sugar industry is in a positron of taking from the taxpayer by means of the subsidy and preferential treatment large sums of money, and of being able to recoup themselves
completely to the extent of the whole of the share capital of these concerns plus the profits distributed. Therefore at the end of 10 years if the subsidy is stopped they will have completely recouped themselves out of the taxpayers' pocket and be able to get out without any loss. If the Government do not change their policy in the meantime the British refining industry will have been ruined and be unable to restart. Some of us on these benches knew in 1925 what the result of the Government policy would be. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did you not say so at the time?"] If the hon. Member had supported the Amendment we proposed at the time to safeguard the whole community by taking a share in the capital assets created we would have had some safeguard, but the whole country is being denuded of these sums of money to provide immunity for the capital for private companies. It seems to me we have to-day seen the first fruits of the policy of what I may call discrimination in industry which must always sooner or later become part of the policy of the Protectionists. That is one reason why we are moving to repeal the Sugar Duty to-day. I agree that at this stage it would be impossible for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to accept this Amendment without recasting the whole of the Budget but it was impossible for us to raise this question on the Budget Resolution. From our point of view this question is not academic but is a vital question. Under the present system we are precluded from raising the sugar question on the Budget Resolution and that is why we are raising it to-day. But even if the duty cannot be abolished this year if the right hon. Gentleman is really sympathetic he could undertake that it should be done next year if there is money on hand.

Mr. MCNEILLindicated dissent.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am sorry the Financial Secretary to the Treasury shakes his head, because I remember in 1925 the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would move in that direction if he had money on hand. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury says that so much of our present financial condition is due to the events of last year, yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able to balance his Budget this year without any increase of direct taxation. If there
is a balance on the Budget next year I think the Government ought to consider the abolition of this duty.

Mr. MCNEILL: I do not think I would be justified in saying that we shall have next year £19,000,000 to play with.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I seem to have heard that same prophecy from quite different sources. I should be sorry, myself, if we had not a balance in hand. I want to see a balance in hand in order that we may attack the general level of taxation, but particularly indirect taxation. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has raised one or two points in his speech which I should like to answer. He says we always attach too much importance to the relative pressure of taxation which is imposed upon the whole community in its relation to the poor. He said we ought always to have regard to what other taxation is imposed on every other section of the community. Now I think that is a very fallacious argument. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself, who has written so much upon various questions of this sort—at least, I gather so from things which I have read and which were written by him in an encyclopædia—would never be able to get away from the principle that taxation should be levied upon the basis of ability to pay.

Mr. MCNEILL: I agree.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am glad the Financial Secretary agrees. How are we to judge of the ability to pay? Would it not be a better manner of judging whether the taxation is based upon that principle by ascertaining what a person has left to spend after paying his taxation? The right hon. Gentleman said it would be unfair to say that a person who has an income of £100 pays a greater proportion of taxation than the person with an income of £100,000 who has to pay Super-tax. Now I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that a working-class family with £100 a year, with a man and his wife and, say, six children in the household, are paying Sugar Duty at the rate of 1¼d. a lb., a duty which averages 10s. per head of the population. Therefore, the effect of that tax upon that household of eight people is £4 per annum, and on the top of that you have the Tea Duty and the Tobacco Duty, and so on. You will see that when these
indirect taxes have been paid by a man with only £100 a year he has very little left to maintain what we would regard as a minimum standard of life, whereas the richer person who may have paid all the same taxes of which we complain—these indirect taxes—and may have also paid Income Tax, Super-tax and Death Duties, has so much left that he can enjoy a very comfortable state of life indeed. That is the whole question.

Mr. MCNEILL: The hon. Gentleman is proceeding on the same principle as I advocate. He is taking the Sugar Duty, the Tea Duty and the Tobacco Duty and stating that they are imposing a heavy burden upon a working-class family. I do not contest that. But he is now taking exactly the same argument which I used, namely, that in estimating the effect of a tax like the Sugar Duty you must take account of the general effect of taxation.

Mr. ALEXANDER: That is very clever of the right hon. Gentleman, but I think the Committee will recollect that his real argument was directed not to indirect taxation but to the cumulative effect of indirect and direct taxation—a general conspectus of taxation as a whole. That is the point. What I want to put before the Committee is our case that this and all other taxes pressing upon the food of the people ought to be repealed, and then we should raise our taxation by means of a direct system in relation to the income and the standard of life which would then be available to the person after the payment of such taxation. That is our case, and I believe it is a sound case. There is one other point I want to make and it is this. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the figures in the case submitted by the sugar-refiners to him last year, and brought up to date this year, he will see that as a result of the reduction by so large an amount of the Sugar Duty in 1924, the consumption in this country has very largely increased. In 1924, the deliveries for home consumption were 16,042 tons. In 1925, they were 18,003 tons, and last year they were 18,037 tons. That is to say, they have been going up each year. If we had a progressive decline in the taxation of sugar we should get a still further extension of the sugar industry and ancillary industries without leading to injustice
to the common people in regard to an article of food which is of very great value to them. For all these reasons, I regret the fact that, while I did not expect the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment to-day, he has not given us a much more definite assurance of what the Government may be able to do in the future.

Sir B. PETO: I think the Committee will feel that after the two speeches of considerable length from the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) and the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) who are both in the main agreed in their attitude on the sugar duty as a whole, and also on the Clause to which the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) referred in his speech, it would not be unreasonable that we should have for a few moments some reply to what I regard as the fallacies upon which their arguments were based. The hon. Member for Greenock traced the whole of the trouble in his constituency and other sugar refining centres here to what he called the policy of tariffs and preference. He also threw upon the present Government the whole onus of the subsidy to which he strongly objects as a policy. The two hon. Members must settle that difficulty among themselves, because it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Socialist Government who started the subsidy, and that forms no part of the general policy of tariffs and Imperial Preference, but was an alternative to a higher rate of tariff and a larger preference, of which the Socialists, and not the Conservative party, were in favour.
The hon. Member attributed the whole of the disasters to our domestic trade to the policy of preference. I think he was entirely wrong, for this reason. I quite agree that if you put on a tax in a clumsy form it is very likely to produce a result which you do not intend. You must recognise the fact that in a pound of refined sugar you have two sets of industries engaged—the industry which produces the sugar, and the one which refines it. The refiners estimate the net value and amount of labour in refining at, roughly, one-third of the value of the finished product. You will then see that it is the method by which the preference has been given and the duty is raised which is doing the injury to your home production. You have a comparatively small
sugar-refining industry in some of the Colonies. You have a large and old-established sugar-refining industry in this country in various centres, and it seems perfectly clear that it is a wrong and clumsy method of charging this duty and making this preference if while you are giving something which is tending to give a preference upon sugar production you are doing it in such a way as not only not to encourage, but in the long run to make it certain that the refinement of the sugar shall be done abroad where it gets the full advantage of this very valuable preference, and will not be done in this country where, unless the hon. Member's Amendment, or something like it, is carried, they can have no similar preference.
The reason you have in the Amendment that the amount is to be one-third of the amount of the preference is the reason that I have already indicated, namely, that the amount of the value of the labour concerned in the refinement is, roughly, one-third of the value of the whole product. The hon. Member for Greenock quoted the history of the Corn Production Act in support of his argument that as this method of Imperial Preference and fostering the production of sugar in this country has lamentably failed, and that the whole of what he calls this mistaken policy should be scrapped. I would remind the Committee of the fact that our agricultural industry in this country is not exactly in a flourishing condition, and there is nothing which produces such disastrous results as a policy of chopping and changing; first of all, having based the industry upon a huge subsidy, and then withdrawing that subsidy suddenly when you find it costs a great deal of money, and leaving the wretched industry struggling. I do not think the history of the Corn Production Act of the Coalition Government is a very good example for the Financial Secretary to follow in this respect. The real remedy for this trouble is to look at what is the cause, and the cause really is that the method of imposing this tariff and of giving this preference to our Dominions and Colonies is a method which wants looking into further.
What my hon. Friend suggests is a Clause which would balance in favour of the home refiners the advantage you
give to the refiners in the Dominions. What we really want to do, in my opinion, is to encourage the production of sugar in the Dominions, but if they want to refine they should refine on level terms with our people in this country. The Financial Secretary said that the sugar refiners here were suffering from very severe competition. They would not complain of severe competition. As the hon. Member for Greenock says, the whole of this industry was built up in face of severe competition, but they have never had such unfair competition to face as they have at the present moment, and it is the method of charging the duty that needs correcting, and not the whole policy which requires to be scrapped.
I only want to refer to one other thing which the Financial Secretary said. He spoke of the loss of revenue that would result. I do beg that when we consider this question from the point of view of loss of revenue, we shall not shut our eyes to the fact that there is a counterbalancing, and, very often, a superior amount of revenue which the Exchequer will lose if they just let the industry die. How much will the Exchequer lose if sugar refining in this country is wiped out? That is the real position. I should not be at all surprised to find that, apart from the loss of employment to the people, the actual financial loss due to such a disastrous policy would be a great deal more than £1,100,000 or £1,400,000, which was the estimated loss to the revenue due to my hon. Friend's Clause.
With regard to the main question before the Committee—the abolition of all the Sugar Duties—I want to say something which my hon. Friends may regard as rather heterodox. I believe there is no duty in the whole of our taxation at the present time which is giving indirectly greater benefit to the working classes in this country than the Sugar Duty which the hon. Member for Hillsborough says falls so heavily on the working-class families. If you test it right through, it is on the basis of the tariff backed up by the subsidy that this great sugar industry is being built up in this country. Also you have to consider that on the preference side of it you are giving to our Colonies and Dominions a market in this country which will enable them to employ
British labour in buying manufactured goods from them. That is a side of the thing which is always overlooked. It is no good counting up how many pence per week it costs to working-class families; you must look at the whole thing, including the preference and including the effect of the duty on the building up of a great industry in this country; you must look at the whole effect of it, and all its ramifications on employment and the finding of wages for the people of this country.

Mr. ALEXANDER: When the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced the duty by nearly two-thirds, employment and production in the industries which used jam and used sugar as an ingredient increased by over 50 per cent.

Sir B. PETO: I have no doubt there are some advantages to be placed on the other side of the account. But what I am asking the hon. Member is that in considering this question he should not look only on one side of the account. He was concentrating to-day on the fact that this duty was a heavy charge on working-class families. In taking that argument it is just as well to see what the average working-class family gets out of the system which enables us to give a preference to our Dominions and to find a market for the products of British labour. I do not wish further to detain the Committee, except merely to say that if my hon. Friend moves his Clause, as I hope he will, I shall feel bound to support it. But I feel there is no Motion which could be moved which would be more easy for me to oppose than the proposal of the present moment, which practically destroys the whole basis of preference and the building up of the sugar industry in this country, and would mean an immediate loss to the Revenue of £19,000,000 as proposed by the hon. Member opposite.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. PALING: I desire to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury one question. I have listened very carefully to the speeches which have been delivered this afternoon, and particularly to the speeches of the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) and the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander). It
strikes me that the situation in the refining industry of the country must be pretty bad. I understand that a large proportion of men have been thrown out of work in Greenock and in London, and I understand that a large number of men have been thrown out of work in Silvertown. I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the proportion of the number of factories that have been closed down, or the proportion of the industry that has had to cease work directly as the result of this sugar subsidy. If he cannot tell us that, I would like to know the approximate number of men thrown out of work as the result of the policy of the Government. I would also like him to reply to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough. That point was in regard to the huge amount of profit which is being made by the people in this new sugar beet industry, and, if, when the subsidy is finished, it will result in these people having recouped themselves so handsomely that, in 10 years' time, they will clear out, leaving the industry derelict.

Mr. J. JONES: I represent a constituency which has a greater number of people employed in this industry than any other constituency in Great Britain, and I think that on that account I ought to be able to know something about it. I have always been under the impression that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were great advocates of high wages and good conditions of employment. I happen to belong to a union which has in its membership the biggest proportion of men employed in this industry, and after 30 years of hard struggling we have managed to establish something like reasonable conditions of employment in the matter of hours and of wages. Conditions are immeasurably superior to those which used to exist in the industry before the men and women were organised. Now we find that this is not a subsidy for the purpose of helping the workers of Great Britain to live under better conditions, but the benefit of the subsidy is going to people who are working under worse conditions, people over whose labour conditions we have no control and in regard to whom we have nothing to say. There is no question of the legal restriction of the hours of
labour or voluntary agreement between unions and employers on this matter. It is a question of each for himself and the Devil take the hindmost. These people are able to make profits not by legitimate trading but because the Government is finding the means for them to do it. I quite see by the advertisements in the financial Press what the inevitable consequence is going to be when the limit is reached and the subsidy period expires. They will unload, like all clever business people, but they will unload at the sacrifice of the people who have built up the industry.
In my constituency casual labour is becoming almost a permanent feature in this industry. When the beet-sugar season is on a man finds that it is almost impossible to get a full week's work. At some periods of the year these men are off work for a week at a time, simply because of the influx of the products of cheaper labour. The employers are bound to take advantage of the competitive conditions in which they find themselves. When the market is glutted by a certain amount of cheaper labour they say: "We are in the position of not being able to carry on the refineries. We will close down for a week at a time." The employers will not grumble. I had a letter from employers in my constituency. I am not an employers man, but I do try to be reasonable and to recognise their position while being fair to the workers, as much as I can. I always contend, however, that the first charge on the industry must be a decent standard of living for the people who work in the industry. But now what do we find? We find old-established firms like Tate & Lyle amalgamating because of the competition between themselves and because of the competition they have to face. They have formed a combine, but they found, as that began to develop and as this new system came into existence, that they were compelled to go further and invest in this beet-sugar industry and try to make the best of both worlds. They found the subsidy working in an opposite direction to that which they imagined. The people under whom this industry is being controlled are not the people in Great Britain. Those people are dominated by outside influences over whom we have no control and the subsidy
is going to their benefit. I am not a prejudiced person in this matter. If the right hon. Gentleman can devise some scheme by which everybody can be treated fairly he will find that he will obtain the support of many Members of this House, but all these fancy schemes of protection are simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. Therefore, I suggest, however much it may be necessary to try to revive agriculture—and agriculture wants reviving, but who are responsible for the position of agriculture? There is the party opposite, which has been the special Godfather—

Mr. HANNON: Your Free Trade friends below the Gangway are the party who have been in power for generations past.

Mr. JONES: You have come into power since with a majority of 220 and there has been a kind of 50–50 arrangement between the Conservative party and the Liberal party. The Liberal party has been in power for half the time and you have been in power for half the time. The Liberal party has been the Free Trade party part of the time. You have been a Protectionist party all of the time.

Mr. HANNON: Hear, hear!

Mr. JONES: Yes, I know, but where is the protection for agriculture? Why whine and complain about the condition of agriculture? If, as you say, you have the power to alter it, why do not you do so? If your theories are correct, agriculture should be the most flourishing industry in the country, but, as a matter of fact, you have gone from confusion to confusion and the last state of the people is worse than the first. Farmers are doing badly and never knew when they were doing well. Like most other people, they are always on the threshold of bankruptcy, but the only people to suffer in the first place are the workpeople. When trade is bad the people responsible for manufacturing and for carrying on business begin to economise always on the people whom they employ. Profits must be the first consideration and the working man must suffer. Therefore, we say that so far as this subsidy is concerned its consequences have been that the working people have got low wages
and have to work longer hours for other people to get higher wages and work shorter hours. That was not the idea of those who originally made these proposals. They were always telling people that if only they had Protection and Preference the working men in this country would have higher wages and better conditions. That has been their argument all through, but in this particular case it has not worked quite that way. Unemployment is becoming more general and the employers have said that they cannot continue to pay the wages which they used to pay because they have to face not merely the competition of the subsidised industry in our own country —in the agricultural areas where wages are based on the agricultural wages, if they give 2s. a week more to the beet sugar industry they think that they are paying a decent wage—but the competition from abroad. The Colonies are getting the benefit of this preference and they are getting the benefit of the competitive subsidy in the markets of the world. We are hit both ways. We have unfair competition subsidised by the Government at home and we have preference subsidising the worst kind of industry in the other countries. If hon. Members opposite can devise sonic method whereby the workers of this country will get a square deal we will argue out the point with them.

Mr. HANNON: We have always stood for a square deal.

Mr. JONES: For a square-headed deal, generally to the advantage of the square-headed men! The workers of this country are not getting a square deal in this case. When we find our factories closing down and working short time without a subsidy and getting no help from the Government or anybody else, and all that the worker gets is a ticket for the Employment Exchange, and he is lucky if he can qualify for benefit under the restrictions laid down, we say that, so far as the worker is concerned, he is getting no advantage from the subsidy and justice is not being done to our own people. This Parliament is not out to give something away to somebody else; if we have anything to give away we ought to give it to our own people, and we ought to help our own people.

Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELL: I used to know something about the sugar trade and, therefore, I am rather interested in listening to this discussion. To begin with, may I say that there is no man in any part of the Committee who is satisfied with the big profits that are being made by the sugar beet companies. These big profits mean that the farmer is not getting a square deal and that the farmer is not getting the price he ought to get for his beet. I am perfectly certain that the farmer will see that he gets far more out of it than he has done in the past and he will see that all the profits do not go to the sugar beet companies.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: What about the labourers' wages?

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: I have finished with that. Then the other point is as to whether the existence of preference, and one thing and another, has anything to do with the closing down of the refineries. I had a good deal to do with this over 30 years ago, and then there were fewer refineries than there are now. I went on the Continent to try and find out what was the cost of growing beet, and I came back with a report that the cost was 9s. 4d. per cwt. and within six months, owing to heavy crops, beet was selling at 5s. per cwt. and sugar being retailed at one penny per pound. The result is that cheap sugar is coming into the country, and, instead of coming in as raw beet as it used to do, and then be refined here, it is coming in as refined sugar and our refineries cannot get the raw material to enable us to compete against the refined sugar which is coming in. That is what has been going on. The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) spoke of Bristol as a refinery town. So it used to be in the old days when sugar came in unrefined, but when sugar came in refined then the Bristol refineries had to shut down. That is the reason. The hon. Member for Hillsborough only wants cheap sugar; he does not care a hang where it is refined.

Sir G. COLLINS: That was the state of things 30 years ago. Let me just point out what is the state of things today. This year 38 per cent. of the sugar consumed in this country was refined here. Last year 45 per cent. of the sugar consumed here was refined here and the
year before that 55 per cent., so that in three years there has been a drop from 55 per cent. to 38 per cent.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Before the War Europe produced about 7,000,000 tons of sugar. Czechoslovakia, as it now is, Germany and Russia, sent to us refined sugar, but when the War started that was stopped, and the Continent produced about 2,000,000 tons instead of 7,000,000 tons. The Continent now has got back to its 7,000,000 tons and it is pouring in refined sugar, and it is because the refined sugar is coming in that these refineries are not able to work. The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) spoke about Tate and Lyle about 30 years ago. They were not there. You had Duncan and Martineau, who are now out of the business.

Mr. J. JONES: I have lived in West Ham longer than that and they were there then.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: They are out of it now.

Mr. JONES: No, they are there yet.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Duncan is out of it. They came from the North. It is the importation of refined sugar that has taken away refining from the refineries, and you cannot keep it out. The hon. Member for Hillsborough wants cheap sugar, but he does not care where it is refined. It is desirable that the factories should refine their own sugar on the spot. Look at the expense of sending the raw sugar to the refineries. The practical way to handle sugar is to do the refining where you get the raw material, and it is doing that that has hurt the refiners. I am sorry for it. It is that reason that brought me to London. I should not be here but for that.

Mr. THURTLE: I think the discussion that has just taken place ought to convince the Committee of the collossal folly it perpetrated when it agreed to the beet-sugar subsidy. It is about the most outrageous fraud that has ever been perpetrated on the nation.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the discussion to develop into one on the subsidy in the sugar beet industry.

Mr. THURTLE: It is rather late in the day to restrict the Debate in that
manner. I have heard a number of other speakers range practically over the whole field of the sugar subsidy, and as I appear to be about the last speaker to take part in the discussion, it seems unreasonable that I should be circumscribed in that manner.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member ought not to say that. I was particularly careful to see that Members did not go too far into the question. But the hon. Member was commencing his speech purely on the question of the beet sugar subsidy. I reminded him that the Clause was not in reference to that, but only indirectly connected with it.

Mr. THURTLE: I agree that the object of the discussion is to try to find some remedy for the great unemployment that exists in connection with the sugar refining industry. I have gathered from the speeches of other Members that one of the causes of that very acute unemployment in the sugar refining industry is the sugar beet subsidy. I merely wanted to point out how complicated this business of the subsidy is. In order to get rid of unemployment, we were induced to agree to the subsidy, and we now find that as the result of it greater unemployment has been created. I wish to make a comparison between the unemployment that exists in the sugar refining industry caused by the beet sugar subsidy and the employment that has been provided as the result of that subsidy, in order to show that instead of gaining we lose on balance. According to figures which have been given me by the Minister of Agriculture, there were last year employed in the sugar beet industry 6,500 people. As I understand it, there are very many more people being displaced from employment in the sugar refining industry as a consequence of the subsidy. So that so far from there being a gain in employment, there has been a net loss.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the hon. Member made any allowance for the numbers of agricultural workers engaged in the production of sugar beet? Has he any authoritative figures?

Mr. THURTLE: Since my hon. Friend has raised the question of the agricultural labourer, I might perhaps be permitted in two or three sentences to explain the
position. According to the Minister of Agriculture, we paid by way of subsidy last year over £3,000,000—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow this to develop into a Debate on the sugar subsidy. It is really only indirectly affected.

Mr. THURTLE: May I make this one single point. If you wipe out entirely the cost of agricultural labour in the production of sugar beet, assume all that is saved by the sugar beet subsidy, and take the remainder, you find that for every man who has been provided with employment in the sugar beet industry last year for a period of 16 weeks, because that is the length of the season, the State provided a subsidy of £260.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the hon. Member to make these remarks. There will be half-a-dozen Members who will want to answer the hon. Member, and the Debate will develop into quite a different channel from that to which it ought to be confined.

Mr. THURTLE: I think I have made my point, which was that over £16 per week has been paid by way of subsidy to every man who has found employment under the beet sugar scheme.

Mr. MCNEILL: May I call attention to the position we are in with regard to business this evening. In answer to an appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the day before yesterday, it was arranged that we should continue this Clause to-day. There could be nothing in the nature of a definite undertaking, but there was something in the nature of an understanding that we should get the Bill by a quarter past eight. We are still on the first Clause and various speeches which have been made, including that of the hon. Member who has just sat down, show what an immense field there legitimately is for a discussion of this sort. We might go on till 10 o'clock discussing this question of sugar with its various ramifications, and there is an immense number of other Clauses on the Paper. I have not the presumption to make an appeal, as I have no ground of complaint, but perhaps I might point out that if we get to about midnight with still a large amount of work in front of us it will be hardly fair to appeal to the Government to prolong the Debate again. We must get through our business to-night even if we have to sit to a late hour.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 128, Noes, 245.

Division No. 245.]
AYES.
[5.25 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
England, Colonel A.
Lawrence, Susan


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lawson, John James


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gardner, J. P.
Lee, F.


Ammon, Charles George
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Livingstone, A. M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gillett, George M.
Lowth, T.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William


Baker, Walter
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillory)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
MacLaren, Andrew


Barnes, A.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Groves, T.
MacNeill-welr, L.


Bowerman. Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Grundy, T. W.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Broad, F. A.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
March, S.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney 4 Shetland)
Maxton, James


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hardie, George D.
Morris, R. H.


Buchanan, G.
Harris, Percy A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hayday, Arthur
Murnin, H.


Cape, Thomas
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Naylor, T. E.


Cluse, W. s.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Oliver, George Harold


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hirst, G. H.
Palin, John Henry


Compton, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Paling, W.


Connolly, M.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Parkinson. John Allen (Wigan)


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Potts, John s.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Soring)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Ritson. J.


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Day, Colonel Harry
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontyprldd)
Rose, Frank H.


Dennison, R.
Kelly, W. T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Duncan, C.
Kennedy, T.
Scrymgeour, E.


Edge, Sir William
Kirkwood, D.
Sexton, James


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Lansbury, George
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Strauss, E. A.
Wellock, Wilfred


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Sutton, J. E.
Welsh, J. C.


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Taylor, R. A.
Whiteley, W.


Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Sitch. Charles H.
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Townend, A. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Varley, Frank B.
Windsor, Walter


Snell, Harry
Viant, S. P.
Wright, W.


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wallhead, Richard C.



Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stephen, Campbell
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wedgwood,Rt. Hon. Josiah
Hayes


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Davidson. J. (Hertt'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Albery, Irving James
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Long, Major Eric


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Ellis, R. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Apsley, Lord
Elveden, Viscount
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lumley, L. R.


Atkinson, C.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Everard, W. Lindsay
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macdonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Balniel, Lord
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macintyre, Ian


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
McLean, Major A.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Fielden, E. B.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Finburgh, S.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Bennett, A. J.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mc Neill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Fraser, Captain Ian
Macquisten, F. A.


Berry. Sir George
Gadie, Lieut-Col. Anthony
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bethel, A.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Malone, Major P. B.


Blundell, F. N.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gates, Percy
Margesson, Captain D.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gault, Lieut-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Briggs, J. Harold
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Meller, R. J.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Meyer, Sir Frank


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Grace, John
Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Buchan, John
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moore, Lieut-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Bullock, Captain M.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut-Col. J. T. C.


Burman, J. B.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Burney, Lieut-Com. Charles D.
Grotrian, H. Brant
Morrison-Bell, sir Arthur Clive


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harrison, G. J. C.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hartington, Marquess of
Nuttall, Ellis


Campbell, E. T.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kinnington)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Carver, Major W. H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Penny, Frederick George


Cayzer, MaJ. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cecil, RT. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hills, Major John Waller
Perring, Sir William George


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Holt, Capt H. P.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Christie, J. A.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Radford, E. A.


Clayton, G. C.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Ramsden, E.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, R. S.(Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Coltox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hume, Sir G. H.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hunter Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Remnant, Sir James


Cope, Major William
Hurd, Percy A.
Rentoul, G. S.


Couper, J. B.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Jacob, A. E.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ropner, Major L.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Rye, F G.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Ltndsey, Gainsbro)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Salmon, Major I.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lamb, J. Q.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.




Sanderson, Sir Frank
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Sandon, Lord
Stuart. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Savery, S. S.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Tinne, J. A.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Withers, John James


Shepperson, E. W.
Vauglian-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wolmer, Viscount


Skelton, A. N.
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Womersley, W. J.


Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Smithers, Waldron
Watts, Dr. T.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wells, S. R.



Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wheler, Major Sir Granvllle C. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Mr. F. C. Thomson


Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

NEW CLAUSE.—(Relief in respect of voluntary contributions under National Health Insurance Act or Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act).

A, voluntary contributor under the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, or the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, shall be entitled to a deduction of the amount of the annual contributions paid by him, or deducted from his salary or stipend, under either or both of those Acts, from any profits or gains in respect of which he is liable to be charged for Income Tax.—[Mr. Townend.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. TOWNEND: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is a simple one and the reasons for submitting it are perfectly simple. I have no doubt that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has already received instructions to accede to this very simple request, so that there is no need for me to traverse a wide range of arguments. It will be noticed that the Clause deals with two sections of the community, namely, those who pay voluntary contributions for National Health Insurance and those who, in addition, have taken advantage of the recent legislation providing for assistance to widows and orphans and making further provisions in respect of Old Age Pensions. I want to pay tribute to the Treasury and the Ministry of Health for providing this legislation for the benefit of a most deserving section of the people. Under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, there is an extension of the principle of Old Age Pensions to those who were formerly denied them. Persons are enabled to make provision for their widows if, in addition to paying their own contributions, they pay the contributions,
which are normally paid by the employers. That is to say, those whose salaries or wages exceed the £250 per annum mark and who were excluded from the provisions of the former Old Age Pensions Act can now, under the new legislation, make arrangements for themselves and their widows by paying both their own contributions and the contributions of the employer. Unfortunately, there is no relief provided in respect of these payments from Income Tax. When these persons make out their Income Tax returns and they pay premiums for endowment or insurance policies, they are entitled to relief from Income Tax in respect of such payments, but when it comes to the sums they pay in respect of voluntary contributions under the National Health Insurance Act or the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, no allowance is made.
We suggest that, if it is justifiable to make allowances for insurance premiums, then there should be no difficulty whatever in the Government agreeing to the same principle being applied in respect of voluntary contributions made by those whose salaries are approximately £250 and over. The same principle applies in the case of payments for superannuation benefit. We know that, if a man pays 2½ per cent. or 5 per cent, of his salary to enable himself or his widow to tike advantage of the benefits that the superannuation fund provides, relief is granted by the Treasury, and such payments are free from Income Tax. We suggest that as superannuation contributions and endowment insurance contributions are exempt, the same privilege should be extended in respect of voluntary contributions under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act. There is a further argument which might
be submitted for the consideration of the Committee. The contributions which the employer makes in respect of Health Insurance and Widows' and Orphans' and Old Age Pensions are allowed to be included in the overhead charges of the business. They are exempt, therefore, from the payment of Income Tax. I suggest that these considerations might be taken to heart by the Treasury and that they should respond to the appeal that we are making in submitting this new Clause. The only difference is that, whereas the employer is provided with relief because of his being able to include the contributions in his overhead charges, the voluntary contributor becomes, as far as this payment is concerned, his own employer. If exemption or relief be provided in the case of the employer, such relief ought therefore to be enjoyed by the voluntary contributor.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury knows that the granting of such a concession would cost the country very little. The members of the community who will benefit are those who have only just passed the £250 a year mark—the £5 a week man—and we know that if there be any section of the community which is carrying a heavy burden it is certainly this section. There is very little protection offered to the members of this class, who stand almost alone. Really, the Treasury ought to bear in mind that this section of the community which is so often said to be the backbone of the nation, stands appealing to them for assistance in the direction indicated. I hope that they will bear in mind that they are a very deserving section of the community. If the Treasury desire any encouragement, surely what they did on Tuesday should be an added inducement to them to assist these people, because, in response to the claims made by more powerful interests and by more cogent arguments than those I can advance, but yet with no stronger case, they made very valuable concessions to Members on the opposite side of the House. There are no more deserving cases than the cases I have submitted. Therefore, I hope the Financial Secretary will view this proposition favourably and that he will be empowered by the Treasury to accept it. Then this appeal will not have been made in vain.

Mr. McNEILL: I am genuinely sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Member in regard to this particular Clause, which I am unable to accept, but, at the same time, I think he is under a little misapprehension as to the way in which his proposal would work out. I do not know whether he realises that, so far as contributions under the National Health Insurance Act are concerned, no relief as a deduction from Income Tax is allowed whether the contributions are compulsory or voluntary. The hon. Member now proposes that relief should be given in the case of voluntary contributions. Therefore, on that point alone, there is an objection. If this Clause were carried, the effect would be that the voluntary contribution would be a legal deduction from Income Tax whereas the contribution made by the compulsory contributor would not be. One can imagine that if there were a case for allowing a deduction in respect of voluntary contributions, there would be a very much stronger case for giving a reduction in respect of compulsory contributions.

Mr. TOWNEND: Is it not a fact that the compulsory contributions paid by the employer are included in the overhead costs of the firm, and therefore not assessable for Income Tax at all? That is the point I desire to make, that the employer's proportion of contributions for Health Insurance is included in overhead and business costs, and is, therefore, not assessable for Income Tax as stated by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. McNEILL: That is a different point.

Mr. TOWNEND: That was the point I was making.

Mr. McNEILL: That is not the point of my hon. Friend's Clause. What the Clause would do would be to enable the contribution of the voluntary contributor to be a deduction from Income Tax, whereas it would not make it so in the case of the compulsory contributor. I think that is a vital objection, though it is not by any means the only objection. I should have to ask the Committee to reject this Clause on other grounds beside that. Generally speaking, the contributions under the Widows and Orphans Pensions Act of last year, and those under the National Health Insurance Act, are contributions for the sake of obtaining certain medical and deferred
annuity benefits. There benefits have at present an actuarial value, and I should like to tell the hon. Member what that value is. The actuarial value of the benefits secured by the voluntary contributor is substantially in excees of the 1s. 3d. or the 1s. 6d. a week which he pays. In the case of a man 40 years of age, who was a voluntary contributor on the 4th January, 1926, the benefits under the 1925 Act alone are at present such as would require a contribution of 2s. 8½d. per week, and in addition he receives benefits under the National Health Insurance Act. That is, of course, under another name a subsidy from the State, and I venture to submit to the Committee that no case is made out why there should be a further subsidy

to the voluntary contributor, especially as the effects of the new Clause would mean that the more well-to-do the voluntary contributor is, the more benefits he would receive. That I am certain is not the intention of the hon. Member. I do not know what the cost to the Exchequer would be if this new Clause were adopted, and I shall not attempt to give any figure at all, but I think it would be quite substantial. It is not on the ground of the cost to the State that I resist this new Clause, but on the principles I have submitted to the Committee.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 258.

Division No. 246.]
AYES.
[5. 50 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Salter, Dr, Alfred


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harris, Percy A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Atkinson, C.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hint, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, Walter
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barnes, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Batey, Joseph
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, J. J. (West Him, Silvertown)
Snell, Harry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Strauss, E. A.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Taylor, R. A.


Connolly, M.
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Townend, A. E.


Dalton, Hugh
MacLaren, Andrew
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Varley, Frank B.


Dennison, R.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
Maxton, James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edge, Sir William
Morris, R. H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondds)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Mosley, Oswald
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Murnin, H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Gardner, J. P.
Naylor, T. E.
Welsh, J. C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Paling, W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Vallay)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Ritson, J.
Wright, W.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Hayes.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Apsley, Lord
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)


Albery, Irving James
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Baldwin, Ht. Hon. Stanley
Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bennett, A. J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Balniel, Lord
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Berry, Sir George


Bethel, A.
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nelson, Sir Frank


Blundell, F. N.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Goff, Sir Park
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Briggs, J. Harold
Grace, John
Nuttall, Ellis


Brittain, Sir Harry
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Penny, Frederick George


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Buchan, John
Grotrian, H. Brent.
Perring, Sir William George


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Burman, J. B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Power, Sir John Cecil


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hartington, Marquess of
Price, Major C. W. M.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Radford, E. A.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hawke, John Anthony
Ramsden, E.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Campbell. E. T.
Henderson, Capt. R. H. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Reid. D. D. (County Down)


Carver, Major W. H.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Remnant, Sir James


Cassels, J. D.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Rentoul, G. S.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, Cltv)
Hills. Major John Waller
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Hogg, Ht. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Cecil Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Ropner, Major L.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Russell, Alexander West-(Tynemouth)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rye, F. G.


Chapman, Sir S.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Salmon, Major I.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnnam)


Christie, J. A.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Clayton, G. C.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sandon, Lord


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillip?
Jacob, A. E.
Savery, S. S.


Colman, N. C. D.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir. Leslie


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cooper, A. Duff
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Shepperson, E. W.


Cope. Major William
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Skelton, A. N.


Couper, J. B.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Lamb, J. Q.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smithers, Waldron


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lister, Cunilffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sprot Sir Alexander


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Locker-Lampion, G. (Wood Green)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. Westm'eland)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Long, Major Eric
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lougher, Lewis
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davidson. J. (Hertf'd, Kernel Hempst'd)
Lumley, L. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tinne, J. A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Tryon, Ht. Hon George Clement


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Macdonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macintyre, Ian
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davison. Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
McLean, Major A.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W


Drewe, C.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Watts, Dr. T.


Ellis, R. G.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I
Wells, S. R.


Elveden, viscount
Macquisten, F. A.
White, Lieut-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


England Colonel A
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. -M.)
Malone, Major P. B.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Margesson, Captain D.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Meller, R. J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wise, Sir Fredric


Fielden, E. B.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Withers, John James


Finburgh, S.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wolmer, Viscount


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Womersley, W. J.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Gadie, Lieut-Col. Anthony
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Worthington-Evans, Ht. Hon. Sir L.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R. (Ayr)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Gates, Percy
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C



Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Morrison. H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Lord Stanley.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Gas Mantles.)

"The Customs Duty imposed under the Safeguarding of Industries (Customs Duties) Act, 1925 (Geo.V.,c.79), on mantles for incandescent lighting, whether collodionised or not, shall be reduced from six shillings the gross to one shilling the gross as from the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, and the Customs Duty imposed under the same Act on impregnated hose or stockings for use in the manufacture of such mantles shall be reduced from four shillings and sixpense the pound to sixpence the pound from the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven."—[Mr. Harris.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Most of the new Clauses and many of the Amendments to this Finance Bill have been met by the representative of the Government, especially by the Financial Secretary, by the argument of the need for revenue and the necessity for making the Budget balance. That has been the case against accepting the new Clause or the Amendment, as the case might be. I move my new Clause with greater confidence, therefore, because its acceptance would not mean any serious loss to the revenue. This duty on gas mantles brings in such a small amount that it is not worth consideration. I should not have raised this subject at the present time if some new factor had not arisen. I am not in favour of bringing up each year the same case and the same arguments unless new factors have arisen during the year, and I think I can show that a new factor has arisen which did not exist when Parliament was persuaded to single out this industry for protection under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. The factor which has arisen is this. A ring of the manufacturers of gas mantles has been formed. it was in existence, I believe, before the duty was imposed, but since then it has been strengthened and almost, if not entirely, completed.
6.0 p.m.
In spite of the duty, the gas mantle manufacturers find that they are not able to compete with the German product; or it may be that they are not satisfied with their profits or the amount of their dividends. Whatever the case may be, they have taken advantage of this duty to come to an agreement with the German manufacturers and I am informed that the arrangement is that on every gross
of gas mantles produced they are to pay a bonus of 4s. to the German interests. That is a result which the Government, no doubt, never anticipated and certainly one which this Committee would not desire. I have often heard from hon. Members opposite about the foreigner paying the duty, but I do not think even the most ardent Tariff Reformer would defend the practice of the users and manufacturers of a particular article in this country paying a bonus to German interests. That is something which the Committee ought to condemn in no uncertain way and this proposed new Clause affords them an opportunity of doing so. This is a very evil precedent for other industries to follow. If we are to have the complicated organisation of the Safeguarding of Industries Act constantly at work, we ought to condemn schemes of this kind which are unsound financially and bad for everybody concerned. The old machinery of safeguarding, in reference to depreciated exchanges, gave this industry a certain amount of protection in the first instance, and on a second inquiry it has been given this duty.
At that second inquiry certain figures were produced. They can be found in the shorthand notes, which I am prepared to produce, but no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has had the advantage of seeing them. Knowing the hon. Gentleman's diligence and industry, I hale no doubt he has gone through them, paragraph by paragraph and word by word, and is as familiar with the shorthand notes as he is with the Prayer Book or the Bible. We find in the evidence of the applicants figures to show that the wholesale price of the German mantles per gross was 22 shillings but the English manufacturers, owing to labour costs and other causes, could not sell under 26 shillings. They asked for a protection of 10 shillings a gross and the Committee recommended six shillings a gross. After the duty had been granted the price of the standard gas mantle—that is the popular article, generally used in working-class homes—remained at 26 shillings, but in little less than a year it went to 36 shillings. I have here the official price list of the combine, which shows that the standard gas mantle, which was the subject of inquiry and on which evidence was given,
has gone from 26 shillings a gross to 37s. 6d.—that is the English price—and that 37s. 6d. is the price for large quantities, such as 500 gross lots. The price in small quantities, such as single gross lots, is very much higher and works out at something like 45 shillings.

Mr. HANNON: What mantle is the hon. Member speaking of?

Mr. HARRIS: The cheap mantle—the mantle used by my constituents in the East End of London and not the high-class mantle like the Veritas. I am coming to that in a moment.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: What is the increased price in that case?

Mr. HARRIS: The cheap gas mantle was dealt with in the evidence at the inquiry—the standard mantle—and, as I say, it has gone up from 26 shillings wholesale to 37s. 6d. That is an undoubted fact. The other day these figures were challenged. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the prices had gone up and, with all the authority and organisation of his Department behind him, the right hon. Gentleman was able to say that the average price had only gone up by one shilling a gross. At the inquiry the principal article was alleged to be the article which was formerly sold at 26 shillings; now it is said that the average price has only gone up by one shilling a gross, although the price of the principal article in the trade has gone up from 26 shillings to 37s. 6d. There is a simple explanation. I knew my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) would be watching me very closely on this occasion and cross-examining me because he is anxious to get at the truth in these matters and to see that the public are not fleeced in his attempts to give protection to the producer and the manufacturer. Accordingly, I made careful inquiries and went round a number of the ordinary shops. I admit it is rather difficult to get at the price. We have had practically constant protection for this particular article since 1923 with an interregnum of less than a year. Under the safeguarding machinery concerned, with depreciated exchanges, there were some 21 months of protection. Then there was the time when the market was
free and the cheap article became available, but that was a comparatively short period. I find that in that short period it was possible for the ordinary user of gas to buy a gas mantle at 3½. or 4½d. That article has disappeared from the market. I have searched every shop in and about the back streets and they can no longer be bought. What has happened is this. The difference between the original 26 shillings a gross article and the more expensive article—

Mr. HANNON: The hon. Member is talking about two totally different articles. He is not comparing like with like.

Mr. HARRIS: I am pointing out that the difference between the cheap article and the better quality article in price is now so small as to be hardly worth consideration. The difference between the standard mantle and the Veritas article is so small that the users find it better to pay the extra price for the better article—and the price is 6frac12;d. I took the trouble to buy one of these mantles, and here it is. This is not the 3frac12;d. article but the better article—the 6frac12;d. article. It is the "Welsbach Cone Inverted Burner." It is branded, and it has an interesting sentence on it which will appeal to the patriotism of hon. Members opposite, "Export prohibited to Australia and New Zealand." Why is that? It is because the German manufacturers have now control of the English trade. Are hon. Members opposite satisfied with that position of affairs? All the articles produced in this country have to pay a bonus of 4s. a gross. Is that what hon. Members desire from Tariff Reform? Do they call that fair trade? I call it a most vicious and unsatisfactory system of combines and trusts. You are safeguarding the German manufacturer and fleecing the public; the working class can no longer get the cheap gas mantle, and have to buy the more expensive article—a better class and better quality article, I agree, hut a more profitable article to the producer. All the time, labour is not benefiting because our English workers are not allowed to manufacture for export to the British Dominions and Colonies. Owing to the benevolent attentions of the Government, in their efforts to help trade in the Empire, we have played into the hands of the German
manufacurers and the public is paying 4s. a gross while no longer having the advantage of the cheap article. I submit that hon. Members, whether Free Traders or Protectionists, must recognise that there is a strong case for the repeal of this duty and that the case is all the stronger in that the repeal of the duty involves no loss to the Revenue because the amount derived from the duty is infinitesimal. The number of mantles coming in is practically negligible and those which do come in are from Belgium and not from Germany. For these reasons I ask the Committee, irrespective of fiscal views, to vote for the proposed new Clause.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): An important feature of the gas mantle duty is that it was imposed under one of the requirements in Part II of the White Paper on the grounds of its nature, its manufacture and its use. The mantle depends for its illuminating effect on the heating power of gas, and it is by the use of mantles that we are able to strip the gas and obtain and conserve very valuable by-products in benzol and toluol. That was the main reason for imposing this duty on gas mantles—in order to conserve the gas mantle industry and these valuable by-products. It was also with a view to maintaining the only commercial outlet for thorium and cerium which are used in the manufacture of gas mantles. So much for the reasons which induced the Government in 1925 to impose the duty. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) has referred to the agreement with the Germans. That agreement was made, I think, some months after the duty came into operation. The hon. Member has treated it in a very surprising way. By their own convention the Germans were enabled to provide a bounty on the export of their own mantles, which amounted to a considerable sum. I am not sure how much it was, but I think it was over 2s. a gross, and the British manufacturers thereupon entered into an agreement with the German association and with associated firms in other countries the largest firms in Italy, Austria, Poland and Holland. That arrangement reserves to the British manufacturers on the one hand the market in the United Kingdom and certain
Imperial markets, and to the Continental manufacturers, the European and United States market—the remainder of the world being, I understand, neutral. As the trade done in this country and the Empire by members of the Convention was more valuable than our trade with the Continent, I understand the British manufacturers agreed to make compensatory payments based upon future British sales in British territory. The hon. Member has stated that under the agreement British producers are paying the Germans 4s. a gross to keep German mantles out of this country. I do not know the actual figure, but I think he very much overstates it when he puts it at 4s. a gross. He says the wholesale prices have increased since the duty from 26s. per gross to 37s. 6d. per gross, and the retail prices from 4½d each to 6d. and 6½d each. I suggest to him that he is not comparing like with like, and that his argument is misleading. To what does it amount?
The hon. Member has treated this arrangement with the Germans as a most immoral procedure. He says they took advantage of the duty in order to make this arrangement, and he condemned that as an undesirable thing to do. I would have said that one of the first fruits of the duty was that it put our people in a position to enable them to make a satisfactory arrangement. That is one of the claims for any duty of this kind, and it operated at once in favour of the British mantle manufacturers. They made their arrangement with the Germans at a time when the trade being done by the Continental mantle manufacturers was overwhelming the mantle manufacturers of this country, and we were losing this important trade of mantle manufacturing. Therefore, I take quite the opposite view from that of the hon. Gentleman as to the morality and the wisdom of the arrangement made by British manufacturers, and as to the wisdom of Parliament in imposing the duty which enabled them to make that arrangement. As to his prices, before the duty Germany imported into this country a large number of gas mantles, which were known as one-ply mantles. I believe it is that class of mantle to which the
hon. Member has been referring, the mantle the wholesale price of which was 26s. a gross.

Mr. HARRIS: 22s. from Germany.

Sir B. CHADWICK: More recently this class of mantle has not been made in this country, but has been replaced by the two-ply mantle, which the makers claim has a much greater lighting power, strength and durability. Many of our gas companies are in the habit of providing gas fittings and making an overhead charge for maintaining them, including the maintenance of the mantles, and it is a proof of the higher quality of the two-ply and the more expensive mantles that these big companies do not use the one-ply or the cheaper quality of mantles to which the hon. Member is referring; and if they do not know what a good mantle is, I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not nor do I. That, I think, supplies a very good answer as to the difference in quality of the mantles. The wholesale price of these latter mantles is about 37s. 6d. a gross. I understand that no mantle of the one-ply type, which he referred to as being sold at 26s. a gross, is being made in this country, but the wholesale price of the better quality article is practically the same as it was before the duty was put on.

Mr. HARRIS: The article to which I referred was the one-ply mantle. It was stated in evidence that it was imported at 22s. and the English mantle could not be sold at less than 26s. The manufacturers did not ask protection for the more expensive mantles, including the Veritas, already on the market.

Sir B. CHADWICK: That may be. I am not clear as to whether we ever made this cheaper mantle; but these points were all before the House of Commons in 1925 when the duty was introduced. I am just describing to the hon. Gentleman where I think he is wrong in comparing one type of mantle with another. He has told us that he went shopping. It is very difficult to furnish any useful analogy when giving detailed prices of things like gas mantles. Gas mantles are sold in all classes of shops. Very often they are sold at different prices in different shops in the same district. I am advised that
the one-ply mantle to which he has referred can be bought at about 3d. in some of the cheaper shops, and I am informed that the retail price of the class of mantle now most generally made by British makers is substantially the same as it was before the duty was imposed, and that the prices range to-day from 4d. in the cheaper class of shops—and even I believe as low as 3d.—

Mr. HARRISindicated dissent.

Sir B. CHADWICK: The hon. Member shakes his head, but I think I am right. The prices range from that figure in the cheaper shops to 6frac12;d., or perhaps more, in the dearer shops. I believe I can sum up what I have been saying in a way which will convince the hon. Member, because he is a reasonable man in everything except this one subject which is not even politics or economics but religion with him. I believe I can sum up in a way which will convince him in his innermost heart. What is it he wants? Of what is it that he is complaining? This duty has been imposed for two years. As to employment numerically, it is not of great consequence, because there are not a large number of people employed in the trade. The output and the sales of British-made mantles are from 14 per cent. to 15 per cent. higher than before the duty was imposed. As to the price, I will prove to him that prices are lower to-day, like for like, than before the duty was imposed. Furthermore, and this is to me the most valuable element, the duty has provided a bargaining instrument for the British traders in negotiations with German opponents who were undercutting them. I think those are very valuable reasons. I have got a box full of these mantles. I have not confined myself to one. I have here a mantle which costs 7½d.—a foreign one. I have also got a British one, two-ply at 4½d.

Mr. HARRIS: The wholesale price.

Sir B. CHADWICK: This morning a member of my staff at the Board of Trade went out and bought a British two-ply mantle for 3d. I think I have disposed of the hon. Member opposite on every count.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I am sure the Committee have followed with the greatest interest the able exposition which the
hon. Member has made of one side of the case. He has moved about from point to point with great freedom, and has delivered what is in his own view a convincing refutation of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris). Let me deal with the exhibits, which have now disappeared, with which he concluded his case. I am informed that the quality which my hon. Friend referred to as the ram standard quality is the quality of mantle which makes up 90 per cent. of the trade. It may be perfectly true that mantles of this or that quality, or this price or that may be sold here and there for a higher figure, but the chief thing to be considered in my view—and I am not so much concerned with gas companies—is the price of the ordinary gas mantle used by the poor persons in my constituency, the gas mantle which they go out to buy when they want a mantle. The hon. and gallant Member who formerly represented Leith informed the Government on a previous occasion that they had chosen the darkest day of the year in order to tax the light of the people, and it is the mantle which provides the light for common ordinary people with which I am concerned. Ninety per cent. of that trade is done in this mantle which is called the ram standard mantle. I have the figures before me, not the retail figures, and the hon. Member representing the Government is an experienced and able enough business man to know that there is a great deal of difference between wholesale figures and retail figures. If you buy 500 gross the lowest price for that standard mantle wholesale is 37s. 6d. per gross.

Mr. STEWART SANDEMAN: May I ask what is the trade discount? That makes a difference.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I know it makes a difference, but I have not got the trade discount. I know perfectly well, too, that even making allowance for trade discount, the wholesale figure is considerably below the retail figure, the figure at which the mantle is sold to the customer. While the hon. Member was speaking, I did a rapid arithmetical calculation, which I hope more experienced hon. Members will check, and
I find, according to my methods of doing arithmetic, that 37s. 6d. a gross represents one-third of a shilling, which is 4d. Therefore, the wholesale price for this article, which represents 90 per cent. of the trade in these gas mantles, is 4d. each, wholesale. In face of that, it is no good the hon. Member trying to convey the impression, though I will not say he did try to convey the impression. It is to be hoped that hon. Members opposite will not run away with the impression that, because a gas mantle can be produced to be sold at 3d., that is the price the ordinary—[Interruption]—there will be plenty of time after-wards—

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Your arithmetic is wrong. You asked us to check it, and we have done so.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I know there is a small fractional difference—

Mr. HANNON: It is only just over 3d.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Apart from that, a very remarkable statement was made by the hon. Member during the course of —[Interruption.] Very well, let us take 3.15d. That is the wholesale price of lots of 500 gross. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) surely will not tell me that, if the wholesale price per gas mantle is 3.15d., for the largest lot you can buy, in other words the lowest price, the retail price on the average is not going to be considerably more. The hon. Gentleman began his reply with a statement about thorium and cerium, and, as I understood his argument, it was that it was necessary to preserve the staff and plant for the production, or refining, or preparation of thorium and cerium in this country. The reason for that argument was that at a certain period the supplies of these metals were in the hands of the Germans, and one of the reasons, if not the chief reason, for this duty, is in order to maintain that industry in this country. I remember that, at the time when this duty was introduced, as at the time of the introduction of every other Safeguarding Duty, we on this side asked if we might be allowed to see the evidence on which the conclusions were based. When the hon. Gentleman says that these questions were settled when the duty was originally imposed, he does not get over the fact that on no single
occasion when these duties have been imposed has the House of Commons, when it has been asked to make the decision, been given the privilege of seeing the evidence on which that decision ought, rightly speaking to be based.

Mr. HANNON: The evidence was given in public.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I do not know whether the hon. Member himself has nothing to do during the day, but he must know perfectly well that the pressure on the time of Members of the House does not permit them, as a rule, to attend public inquiries.

Mr. HANNON: It is well known that those who were interested in defending the imposition of this duty to protect a British industry had their people there making careful notes of all the evidence.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Is it the hon. Member's contention that interests which are in favour of this or of other duties have their people there making careful notes?

Mr. HANNON: Yes.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Surely, there could not be a greater condemnation of the action of the Government than that. Are we to rely upon what, at the best, must be ex parte statements or ex parte selections of evidence given during the inquiry? Is it not better that there should be an authoritative official account of the evidence, which would be above any criticism or reproach from the point of view of partiality? Even without that, the Committee, in their Report on this duty said:
The gas mantle industry in this country was at that time"—
That was in 1913—
to a considerable extent in German hands, and existed largely on sufferance, owing to the control which the Germans exercised over supplies of monazite sand and the thorium industry. During the War, the Travancore deposits of monazite sand were freed from German control, the manufacture of thorium and cerium was established in this country, the German hold over the gas mantle industry here was released, and the equipment of the industry was greatly extended,
On that showing there was no case whatever for protecting this industry in order to protect the thorium and cerium industry. I pass on to what I think was the very remarkable interpretation of
the hon. Gentleman with regard to the arrangement between the English manufacturers and the German manufacturers. He talked about compensatory payments made to German manufacturers; but at whose expense? At the expense of the British consumer. Never once during all the discussion has there been any reference whatever to the case of the consumer. I see that the hon. Member for Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) is making preparations to speak on this matter. I understand that in his constituency there are factories or industries which are affected by this duty. Will the hon. Member give us information as to the movement of wages in this industry during the periods when this duty has been on and when it has been off? Will he tell us if the people who are employed have benefited largely by this duty? In an article which appeared the other day in the "Manchester Guardian" Commercial Supplement—not, I think, a paper that can be lightly disregarded in these matters—I find two things. In the first place, I find that the figure of 4s. per gross, which my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) gave, as the tribute paid by English manufacturers to German manufacturers, is an accurate one. I also find a calculation showing that, during one year after this duty had been imposed, those concerned who had benefited by this duty made as much as £300,000. Of course, they are satisfied with the duty; but will the hon. Member for Wandsworth explain to us who are the people who have got additional employment, and what share they had of the pound300,000?
Let me return, as I am wandering a little, to a point that the hon. Gentleman made. He said that one of the great virtues of this duty was that it had enabled our people to make arrangements with the German producers—that, in other words, a virtue of a protective duty is that it enables British manufacturers, by arrangement, to keep out of the country those articles which would compete with them, and, as a result of that freedom from competition, to exploit the consumers in this country to an extent which enables them to pay to their foreign competitors a tribute of 4s. per gross. If that be a virtue according to the hon. Gentleman, give me vice every time. As in every other instance, no
kind of case has been made out for this duty. Hon. Members opposite in interjections, while I have been speaking on this and on other occasions, have said that really there is no increase in the price, that the consumer has not to pay. May I remind them that, in another connection which is very apropos of this one, a colleague of the hon. Gentleman's, the Minister of Agriculture, replying to a deputation of agriculturists, said that a protective duty would be of no use whatever to the agricultural industry unless it raised prices. What is true of agriculture is true of every other industry. A case has never been made out for this duty; it is impossible to make out a case for it to-day. We all know what will happen. In a few minutes, when we come to our Division, hon. Members will troop into the House, and the obedient Government majority, as they have always done in the past, will record their votes, without any case behind them, without any reason for what they are doing.

Sir H. CROFT: I do not think the Liberal party has ever done that!

Mr. CRAWFURD: A short time ago, the Press informed us of the arrival of a new species at the Zoological Gardens. Those feathered creatures which have lately arrived there are known as processionary birds, and we are told that the official description of these processionary birds is that they are creatures which follow one another in single file for an indefinite time and for no apparent reason. We shall see the pro-cessionary birds from the Government benches flocking into the Lobby again, and we shall know once more that we are right and they are wrong.

Sir HENRY JACKSON: I think we may now get back from these rather sterile zoological arguments to the practical realities of this case. I want to point to the practical results of this safeguarding duty in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and which manufactures, I suppose, something like 85 per cent. of the gas mantles produced in this country; and I would then like to summarise very briefly what has happened. In the first place, let me state—and I may say that I am allowed to state this on behalf of the Incandescent Gas Mantle Manufacturers' Association,
so that both the facts and the conclusions may be regarded as official—that the average increase in the wholesale price of mantles during this year over the previous year is less than 1s. per gross, and, as the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) has not quite realised, that increase of is. per gross has been entirely made up of increases in the cost. of ramie yarn and thorium nitrate. Those two commodities have increased to the extent of 1s. 4d. per gross of mantles. A second fact is one that has been alluded to so often that I need not emphasise it, and I would only repeat what the President of the Board of Trade said on the 28th June, namely, that, from the information in the possession of his Department, the retail price has not increased as a consequence of the imposition of this duty. I venture to say that an official statement of that kind may be accepted by the Committee in preference to the rather, shall I say, unofficial statements of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green.
Several specimens have been produced this afternoon, and I do not wish to trouble the Committee with more, but I would tell the Committee that yesterday afternoon two British gas mantles were purchased—I can give the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green the addresses—at 4frac12;d. each, whereas it has been repeatedly stated that they could not be bought for less than 6d. During this year British gas mantle manufacturers have sold 34,000 gross more than they sold the year before, and that, interpreted in employment, is at any rate a factor. I need not allude, as the Parliamentary Secretary has already done so, to the confusion in the mind of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green as to what he calls the price of 26s. per gross before the imposition of the duty, and the pr ice of 37s. 6d. to-day. The hon. Member is not speaking of things that are alike. He is referring, in the first instance, to a cheap article which was sold at less than cost price before the imposition of the duty, which was inferior in quality, so that no gas company in this country would buy or use it, and which, as a consequence of the duty, has been abandoned.
Therefore, the hon. Member, when he speaks of a price of 37s. 6d, per gross, ought, in all fairness to the Committee,
to compare like with like. Instead of being an increase of 11s. 6d. a gross, it is less than 1s., due to the increased price of ramie yarn and thorium. That is the crux of the matter. The Safeguarding Committee made it quite clear that, unless there was a satisfactory production of gas mantles in this country, this great industry of production of thorium in this country, an industry which was scheduled as a key industry in 1921, would go by the board. If thorium could not be produced in this country, we should be entirely dependent. upon Germany. I need not tell the Committee of the great importance of thorium in time of war. We are entirely dependent upon it for war purposes, and if that trade was in the hands of the Germans, in the case of another war we should have to bear all the miseries that conditions of things would impose. The Committee were perfectly right when they said:
The significance of the mantle lies first and last in the fact that it is practically the sole commercial outlet for thorium, which in its turn has been described to us as the bread and butter of a group of secondary chemical products, compounds of thorium and cerium.
Immediately the Safeguarding Duties were passed by this House, 18 months ago, there was a German gas mantle convention, and the German manufacturers decided that they must try to devise some new weapon to deal with the weapon which the President of the Board of Trade had placed in the hands of the British manufacturers. They decided that for the future the price of the gas mantle in Germany should be raised from 28s. a gross to 50s. a gross, and by that increase of the mantle in the German market they would be able to dump, as they thought, their gas mantles into this country. It was only fair that the British manufacturers should try to find another weapon to fight the weapon which was being used against him, and there was an arrangement, an agreement, made between the German manufacturers and the British manufacturers, the outlines of which have been stated. In Great Britain and certain of our Dominions the British manufacturer will have the field to himself. America and the Continent are to be in the hands of the German manufacturers. The rest of the world is to be a neutral sphere for both. What has happened in the last
fortnight? It has been the custom of the large firms in Calcutta to purchase their mantles in Germany, but now that the mantles of British and German manufacture are in the Calcutta market and are much the same, they have decided that in future they will give this country the preference, and that British mantles shall be bought.
The hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) has said on more than one occasion—he did it this afternoon and his faithful lieutenant the Member for Walthamstow West (Mr. Crawfurd) has repeated the statement—that the British manufacturer is paying 4s. a gross to keep the German mantle out of this country. Will he allow me to tell him categorically that that is absolutely inaccurate and untrue. I am not at liberty to give him the figures, but he would be amazed what a small figure it is by which that agreement has been sealed. I hope that from now onwards we have heard the last in this House of the 4s. a gross increase in price.

Mr. HARRIS: I am open to correction. I have only ordinary sources of information; I am not in the secrets of the firms. Let the hon. Member tell the Committee the price, and I will withdraw my figure. Let him tell the conditions.

Sir H. JACKSON: I have stated the conditions. The conditions are the spheres of influence within which the different manufacturers can operate. The hon. Member's figure is certainly more than twice as great as the agreed figure. I am not at liberty to tell him the actual figures. His figure is grossly inaccurate. He must allow me now to be content by telling him that his figure is grossly untrue. By this duty we have proved four things, (1) that, on the wholesale price, the increase of 1s. per gross is represented by the increased cost of things entirely outside the question of safeguarding, namely, the increase in the price of ramie yarn and thorium; (2) we have had the official statement of the President of the Board of Trade that the retail price has not increased; (3) we have the great factor that there is now a great field for the British gas mantle manufacturer not only in this country but in our Colonies, and also in the great neutral spheres; and (4) we can guarantee the production of thorium in this country.
I appeal to the Committee, finally, on a question which has nothing to do with sterile or academic fiscal considerations, but on the question of employment. In the year 1920, this industry found employment in my constituency for 3,300 people. As a consequence of the unfair competition, where the British gas mantle manufacturer was fighting with one hand tied behind his back, the number, employed had decreased in 1924 to 1,700; in 1925 it had gone down to 1,500. There we had a spectacle of an industry, with all its allied industries, gradually disappearing as a British manufacture. We have seen that reduction stemmed; we have seen the rot stopped; we have seen the figures begin to go up, and at the present time there are nearly 1,800 people engaged in the gas mantle industry in my constituency. The right hon. Member for Coins Valley (Mr. Snowden) may smile. It may be a small thing to him, but if he happened

to be a member of one of the small homes in my constituency where a girl is bringing in a weekly wage and it was a question of that wage disappearing or not, I do not think he would smile. It means the difference between comfort and happiness in those humble homes in my constituency, and on their behalf I say that they owe a deep debt of gratitude to the President of the Board of Trade for the magnificent thing he has done. Unemployment is a grim fact which we have to face, and if we can relieve it in a small way, we are doing a great service. I have no hesitation in saying that the result of this duty in the last year has been wonderfully successful, and if the Committee, as I hope they will, continue the duty, I am certain that it will be abundantly justified.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 240.

Division No. 247.]
AYES.
[6. 55 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harney, E. A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sexton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayes, John Henry
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Briant, Frank
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe,


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Heath)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snell, Harry


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Spoor, Ht. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Taylor, R. A.


Connolly, M.
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lindley, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Livingstone, A. M.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edge, Sir William
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Maxton, James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


England, Colonel A.
Morris, R. H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, J. P.
Mosley, Oswald
Whiteley, W.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Murnin, H.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gosling, Harry
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wright, W.


Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Grundy, T. W.
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Sir Robert Hutchison and Mr.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rose, Frank H.
Percy Harris


NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fielden, E. B.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Finburgh, S.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Apsley, Lord
Fraser, Captain Ian
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Atkinson, C.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Nelson, Sir Frank


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gates, Percy
Nuttall, Ellis


Balniel, Lord
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Penny, Frederick George


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Goff, Sir Park
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gower, Sir Robert
Perring, Sir William George


Bennett, A. J.
Grace, John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Grant, Sir J. A.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Berry, Sir George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bethel, A.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Price, Major C. W. M.


Blundell, F. N.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Radford, E. A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grotrian, H. Brent
Ramsden, E.


Briggs, J. Harold
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Brittain, Sir Harry
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Remnant, Sir James


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Rentoul, G. S.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Ropner, Major L.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hartington, Marquess of
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Buchan, John
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rye, F. G.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hawke, John Anthony
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bullock, Captain M.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Burman, J. B.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sandon, Lord


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hills, Major John Waller
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St Marylebone)
Savery, S. S.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Caine, Gordon Hall
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Campbell, E. T.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Shepperson, E. W.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Skelton, A. N.


Cassels, J. D.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smithers, Waldron


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chamberlain Rt Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Chapman, Sir S.
Jacob, A. E.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Christie, J. A.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Clayton, G. C.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Colman, N. C. D.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Tinne, J. A.


Cooper, A. Duff
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cope, Major William
Lamb, J. Q.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Couper, J. B.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Locker, Herbert William
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Watts, Dr. T.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lumley, L. R.
Wells, S. R.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Curzon, Ciptain Viscount
Macintyre, Ian
Williams, Com. C. (Devon Torquay)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macmillan Captain H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macquisten, F. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Malone, Major P. B.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Davison Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Manningnam-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Withers, John James


Drewe, C
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Womersley W. J.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Mason, Lieut-Col. Glyn K.
Wood E. (Chest'r, Stayb'ge & Hyde)


Ellis, R. G.
Meller R. J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Elveden Viscount
Meyer, Sir Frank
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)



Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Captain Bowyer and Captain Margesson.


Bill read a Second time, and committed.

New CLAUSE.—(Wrapping paper (exemption when used as new material for yarn).)

Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that any paper liable to duty under Section eleven of the Finance Act, 1926, as being packing or wrapping paper is imported after the date of the passing of this Act, solely for the purpose of being spun into yarn, the Commissioners shall, subject to such conditions (if any) as they think necessary for the safeguarding of the revenue, allow that paper to be imported free of duty or repay any duty paid on importation, as the case may be.—[Sir L. Scott.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir LESLIE SCOTT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a very small Amendment to the Bill, but a very important one, in order to save a comparatively new industry in this country. If it be accepted, as I hope it may be, that industry will be saved, and a considerable amount of employment will be ensured. The industry consists in using a very particular kind of imported wrapping paper, called Kraft paper, that is within the Safeguarding Duties, which is turned into yarn, and with that yarn carpets, bags and other things are woven. Until the duty was imposed this little company, started with entirely new and very good machinery, was doing very well and increasing its output and the number of hands which it was employing. Everything looked as if we were starting a new industry in this country very successfully. When the duty was imposed under Section 11 of the Finance Act of last year, the result was that the yarn had to stand the duty, and the carpets, and so on, made from the yarn which paid the duty, had to face the competition of manufactured carpets introduced from abroad, which, under the same Act were allowed in free of duty if the material in the carpets other than paper was more than one-sixth.
The result was that their competitors were able to sell an article entirely free of any duty, while they had to pay the duty which, in fact, knocked them out of competition. They had another source of competition in carpets made from jute. They were able to compete successfully against the jute-made carpets as long as they did not have to pay any duty on the paper out of which they made their
yarn. As soon as the duty was imposed, it made such a difference in the cost of the manufactured carpet that they have not been able to compete successfully with the jute-made carpets. The result is that, whereas in the year preceding the duty they made a handsome little profit, in the year succeeding the duty they made a definite loss. If the duty on their raw material were removed, they would be able to employ at a very early date something like 400 hands, and if they cannot get the duty removed the company will be ruined, and have to go into liquidation. The case is one for safeguarding a British industry which depends on duty-free raw material, from the harm that—unintentionally—has resulted from the imposition of a duty which, on the whole, in this country has done much good and produced much employment of labour.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): This is a case which has been very carefully examined by both the Board of Trade and the Customs, and it does present one unique feature, namely, that of all the cases in which it was thought difficulty might occur it is the only case where the material that is used is of a kind which cannot be manufactured in this country. It is a fact that in this special instance the company has to use a particular kind of kraft which is only made, I think, in perhaps one or two factories in Sweden. That is a fact which differentiates it from all the general cases which have hitherto been quoted. It is a case which, by the peculiar nature of the company, might be met without interference with the very important rules and arrangements of the Customs administration with regard to any drawbacks. That being so, the Treasury and the Board of Trade are only too anxious to consider a case which can be met without infringement of Regulations, and without prejudicing British industries. It is a unique case of the kind, and, in these circumstances, I shall be very glad to accept the Clause.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I want to say only one thing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this new Clause recommended it on the ground that it was a proposal for the safeguarding of an industry by removing the tariff. I
welcome this evidence of the progress of the education of Tariff Reformers in this House, and I hope they will realise that the only way to safeguard any industry is by the removal of the tariff.

Sir L. SCOTT: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the education he has given me, may I express the hope that he will follow the path the Government have adopted here.

Sir JOHN SIMON: The President of the Board of Trade describes this as a unique and peculiar instance. It is certainly a peculiar instance, because it is an instance in which even he has to admit that people who try to protect one form of industry can do a great deal more harm to other people than they seem to realise.

Mr. HALL CAINE: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is quite fair to the concession given by the President of the Board of Trade in the deductions that he draws from it. The position in this matter is this. I have taken considerable interest in the safeguarding of wrapping paper, and the Committee will agree that I know a little bit about it. The position is quite clear. In this particular case there are only two factories in the whole world which make this peculiar form of paper. The wrapping paper makers in this country do not wish to be unreasonable or to ask for unreasonable protection. I do not think it has ever been the case that the safeguarder asked for unreasonable protection. We were very glad to co-operate with the right hon. and learned Gentleman who proposed this Clause, because wherever we do not make an article we are perfectly prepared not to ask for safeguarding.

Mr. HARRIS: It is often said that the imposition of a duty does not mean an increase of price. That has often been repeated, but here we are informed that the imposition of a tariff has increased the price paid by the consumer, namely, the user of the article.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of 10 and 11 Geo. V., c. 18, s. 3, sub-s. (2).)

Section three, Sub-section (2) of the Finance Act, 1920, shall have effect as if for the words "nineteen hundred and twenty," "nineteen hundred and twenty-seven" were
substituted, and as if for the words "three pounds twelve shillings and sixpence," "one pound ten shillings" were substituted.—[Mr. Macquisten.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
By this Clause I am proposing that the duty on whisky should be reduced from its present extravagant and uneconomical figure of £3 12s. 6d. to £1 10s. If I thought that that were going to affect the revenue, I would have some diffidence, in the present state of the country's finances, but it will not do so, because it will have the effect of enabling a bottle of whisky—a peculiarly Scotch product—instead of being sold at 12s. 6d. to be sold for the sum of 6s. I am satisfied that if it were sold for 6s., the consumption would be increased at least three times, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would gain 90s. in place of his present 72s. 6d. No possible loss could accrue to the revenue. I wonder if he has got the courage to admit that? I am perfectly sure he knows it is the case. As to what I may call the well-to-do classes, the better-off classes-for I never speak of them as the better classes—I do not think it would make any difference to them. They would just drink as much or little as they are doing now, because when a man has a reasonable-sized income, he takes exactly as much of that commodity or any other excisable liquor as he feels inclined to have, and the price does not stand in his Way.
The reduction would admit to the users of this commodity a vast number of the population who at present desire to have it, but who are precluded from having it for purely financial reasons—the people upon wham prohibition is being inflicted by a method of taxation which, I think, is both unjust and unfair and a particularly wrong form of class legislation. It is all the more necessary that this abatement should be made, because of the fact that in this Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made very serious additions in the case of other beverages which have taken the place of this purely national Scottish beverage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has put a large duty on the Spanish wine known as Spanish Red or Tarragona Port. That was an article which for some
years paid only 10s. per gallon duty as proof alcohol against the duty on Scottish whisky of 72s. 6d. per gallon, with the result that the working man and the lower middle classes were driven from whisky by this excessive taxation to the consumption of Spanish Red or other commodities in order to obtain what they wanted. They are now consuming enormous quantities of this particular beverage, more especially in the industrial areas of this country. It is quite a good sound wine, but it has now been put out of the reach of the working classes by the duty imposed upon it by the Budget. It may find its repercussion on the whisky, but I very much doubt it. I do know what the effect will be on a very large section of the community who are as much entitled to have what they require in this respect as any other section of the community.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted that the consumption of whisky has dropped down to about one-third of what it was when the duty was less than one-seventh of the present figure. When the whisky duty was 10s. a gallon the consumption was three times as great as it was last year. When the duty was raised to 14s. the decrease in consumption was not very great, but when it was raised to 72s. 6d. people began to realise that they could not afford to buy whisky. On this question, I cannot understand why I do not get more support on these benches and from the Labour benches. This is peculiarly a working-class question, because the effect of this duty is that the working classes are pilloried and penalised. Of course, it does not make any difference to me, but, if I were to be subjected to the same treatment as the working man in regard to this question, I should be a very dissatisfied person. I am perfectly sure that if the well-to-do classes, or the members of the Carlton Club, the Constitutional Club, the Reform Club, or the National Liberal Club or even the wealthier members of the Labour party, were to experience the same difficulty in getting what they wanted to drink as the average working man, they would all become Bolshevist in their opinions in a very short time.
I do not understand why the members of the Labour party do not see that if they could bring whisky down to 6d. per
glass and beer to 3d. per pint they would at once become a very popular party in the country. If I had been Labour Chancellor and had desired to make certain of winning the last election I should have announced to the public that I proposed to reduce whisky to 6d. a glass and beer to 3d. per pint and put an extra shilling on the Income Tax and the Super-tax to make up the difference in the revenue. I should then have been in a position to tell the Super-tax people that they ought to be proud of the opportunity of standing the working man a drink, and I do not believe they would have seriously objected. If that had been done at the last election, we should have forgotten even the Zinovieff letter. Even the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) has given eloquent testimony to the fact that it would not matter if you smashed trade anions so long as you did not interfere with the working man's drink. A working man once said to me: "Mr. Macquisten, could you not get a reduction of the duty on beer, spirits, and tobacco, because they are our principal comforts." I said that I would do my best, but I asked him to recollect that those articles were the comforts of all of us. You hear a good deal of talk about golf, shooting, and fishing, but, if it were not for the little refreshment at the nineteenth hole or at the end of the day, all enjoyments and sports would be very melancholy business. Election after election has taken place in Scotland since the passing of that wretched Local Option Act, and, although the vast mass of the people in Scotland are, from economic reasons, compelled to practise total abstinence, they have solidly voted against the total abstinence point of view.
I do not believe in the view which is often expressed in leading Conservative circles, and always in Liberal circles, that the working man should not be allowed to have anything to drink. It is like the state of things which has been described as existing in the United States, where employers sit down with their friends drinking Johnny Walker and John Dewar's whisky, bootlegged to them, and at the same time express the highest approval of prohibition as reflected in the increased output and better timekeeping of the men they employ. That makes me, as a friend of the working
man and a democrat, exceedingly angry every time I hear it, because I believe in the working man having exactly the same opportunity on a question like this as I have myself. A working man once told me that a glass of whisky was the only thing that gave a working man a feeling of independence, and, when he used to go to his favourite place for a drink, he asked for "a glass of independence." That reminds me of the story told by a certain Scottish singer who said that he belonged to Glasgow, but, when he had had a couple of glasses of whisky, Glasgow belonged to him. The same view is expressed by one national poet in the lines:
Kings may be bles't but Tam was glorious
O'er a' the ills o' life victorious.
Why should the working man be denied these opportunities, and why should we bully him in regard to these matters when we here can drink as long as the House sits? A working man is just the same as we are, and he possesses the same amount of self-control.
In the next place, you ask us to consider the effect of drinking upon the health of the people. Whisky was first invented by the clergy in the twelfth century, and the clergy generally find out most of the good things. At that time, whisky was very largely used as a medicine. We read of James V giving so many bushels of barley to the monks of Dryburgh to make the spirit medicine. Whisky now is still very largely used as a medicine, although some people take more of it than others. It is a poison, but a very slow poison, which kills the microbes of diseases. I remember in the year 1918 an influenza epidemic taking place in a mine in South Africa with which I was connected, and during that epidemic we lost over 100 of our coloured labourers, and none of the white staff. I said to the doctor: "You have a wonderful record in regard to the white workers; why could you not save the blacks?" and he said: "I had not enough whisky to save the black men. By the time I had poured it down the whites there was very little left for the negroes, although a few of them were saved who got some for acting as undertakers." In 1920, when the Local Veto
Bill was before Parliament, a constable in this House said to me: "A dreadful thing is going to happen in Scotland. We live 50 miles away from a doctor, and my mother always keeps a couple of bottles of whisky in the House. If any members of the family are taken ill, we get half a bottle of whisky, and they get better." We may not get it now.

Mr. J0HNSTON: Will the hon. Member explain to me why it is that insurance companies will insure a man's life at 10 per cent. less premium if he is a total abstainer?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Yes, I will explain. I would like to give that statement a flat contradiction, because it is a mere emanation from the hon. Member's mind. Those who insure their lives may give an undertaking to be total abstainers, but it never gets any further than the undertaking. I am aware that some so-called temperance insurance companies make that statement, but the vast number of them agree with me that it is not the case at all. At the last Budget I was attacked by the temperance party, true though I had not dealt with their views, and I wish to say a little about them, but not much to-night. Not only is this duty doing a great wrong to Scotland, and to the Customs and to the consumers of this particular commodity, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer is killing a very great industry. He is doing an enormous harm to agriculture, because the present duty upon alcohol, upon whisky made of barley, is equivalent to between £300 and £350 of duty on every acre of barley grown. In regard to foreign barley there was a promise given of a duty thereon, but it has not been carried out. You could not do anything better than to secure that the duty was at such a figure that the barley growers would again have an opportunity of growing it.
There is not only an injury being done to the barley-growing industry, but also to the Scotch distillers. When the strength of whisky was reduced to 30 under proof, it was claimed to be a victory for temperance. It was really a trade ramp by the patent still makers. You were really paying for more water. Good whisky was made out of barley, and made what you call pot-still whisky of
good sound substance. Then came in the patent still whisky which is made of maize and is not whisky at all. At 30 under proof there is not enough whisky in it to keep the malt, the stuff goes bad, and you have to mix more of the patent still in it, and it helps to preserve it. It has been said that whisky must be kept for three years, but there is no real difference between whisky three days old and whisky three years old, and that was another trade ramp by those who had large stocks. The distillers are like the brewers. We all know that brewery shares were drugs in the market, but as soon as the extravagant duty was put on the shares and profits went up. All the large distillers are members of the nobility were ennobled by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) at the time he was making speeches about the "lure of drink." I thought that all these gentlemen were justly entitled to be ennobled, because any man who makes a large quantity of good whisky deserves a title on account of the number of lives he saves by preventing people drinking the bad stuff, but he should not get his title from a Prime Minister who orates about the "Lure of Drink." During his Premiership, if one made a large quantity of whisky it was difficult to escape a title. Out in the East there is a very large trade for whisky, for sanitary reasons. It is a disinfectant, and everybody consumes it. There are no teetotallers there because they all die very quickly. Any hon. Gentleman who doubts that statement can go out there, but I am afraid he will never return. The teetotallers die first, and then the gentlemen who over-consume, and then the moderates survive.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What do you call the moderates?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Such as myself I discovered at Shanghai you could buy a bottle of whisky for 5s. 6d. or 6s.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Before the War?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: No, in January last. In the cheapest place the price was 5s. 6d. In Singapore it was 6s. That is why there is so little discontent among the white population. It was a very shocking thing when I came home and got
back to the old figure of 12s. 6d. I expect I will get from some hon. Gentlemen on the other side stories as to the gaols and lunatic asylums being all filled with drunkards. I was talking in the North to a leading alienist, and I put that up to him, and he said, "It is all nonsense. Feeble-minded people take to drink because they are feeble-minded. They are not feeble-minded because they have a drink. It is the mark of the feebleminded person to be wanting in self-control." Of course they cannot stand up to it. A great many people escape the consequences of the feeble-minded by being total abstainers. One can realise a number of Members even in this House who have little self-control, and are yet known as total abstainers. What would happen to them if they ceased to be total abstainers? After all, there is a very small percentage of the population who over-indulge, and come to an untimely end. Would it not be better to give them all they want and get them in a happier sphere where they will not be subject to temptation? It may not be what they want, but it will probably be in the interests of the race. To allow them to over-indulge to the point of extinction might be a good thing, anyway it would only be a form of postponed birth control such as the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) supports, with this advantage that this doctrine if practical might lead to the destruction of some great man while here the victims have been weighed in the balance and found wanting.
When I was in the East I met a young man who had come from Ireland. He had been farming, and I made it my business to inquire—I am always anxious to get information, because there is a terrible amount of ignorance on this subject—about what is ultimately going to defeat this extravagant taxation. He told me that when he was in Ireland he used to take one pound of brown sugar, a cupful of treacle, half an ounce of yeast, mix them in water, blood-heat, and put them through a retort or kettle, and make half a pint of whisky; and it was very sound stuff. He said: "They are all doing it in Ireland. I do not think the Government mind. because the men who make it cannot afford to buy it so the Government are not really losing in revenue." I said, "What about the
police?" and he said, "I had not a still. and so they would need to have caught me in the act, but, as a matter of fact, the police never bothered me, because I made it rather well, and they used to come in and have some—the Irish policeman is a very intelligent fellow and thinks it a fearful piece of impertinence for any Government to say to a man who has got his own treacle, sugar and yeast that he shall not mix it." I have not tried it myself, but I am not at all sure that I will not try an experiment and treat the Chancellor to a little of it, and show him what is going to happen to his duty. And it is happening. It is happening in Canada, where they are making their own stuff. There are a great many Scottish people there, and they are making their own whisky. You may not know, but I know that there is a great deal being made in Scotland.
Every now and again you manage to catch them, but to nothing like the extent that it is going on, and it will increase, and the Chancellor will have to learn that he has got to make his duty so reasonable that it is not worth anybody's while to bother to make it. I know it is said there is a great destruction of food if this is allowed, but whoever says that has never thought it out. Is it not realised that if it were not the fact that these commodities were desired by the people the food would never be grown? No nation grows more corn than it thinks is enough to supply them for one year. The economic reason is that if you plant too much the whole crop becomes worthless, because the price sinks to an unremunerative value. But if you have an alternative means of using it, such as distilling or brewing material, which will enable it to be kept indefinitely, you have a kind of safety valve, and what is the effect of that? The effect is to guarantee the people of the country against famine.
In places where the population as a whole have the right to get what they want to drink, there is always a larger area, and 40 to 50 per cent. more land in cultivation, than would otherwise be the case, and so there is plenty of food. In a year of shortage, there is no brewing, and the result is that the nation can fall back on an area of cultivated ground 40 or 50 per cent. larger than would otherwise be the case. You can test that
in countries like India, where the people have a little opium but no alcohol. There you have had a famine or shortage every five years since Warren Hastings, with thousands or tens of thousands of people perishing. With famine you get pestilence, and if you go down through the ages to the time of the Black Death, you will see that that was broadly the result of famine, through total abstinence preventing adequate grading of grain. This acreage gives a huge reserve of food for the masses of the people. If you look at Russia, when the late Czar proclaimed total prohibition from vodka, the peasants had all their grain thrown back on their hands. That prepared the way for the revolution and for the destruction of the Russian people.
I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Committee to realise that this class legislation is causing the greatest possible amount of discontent. It is not very largely vocal, because the working man has been so preached at and talked at that he does not like to protest when he is against a thing such as this. No man likes to stand up in a large crowd and protest in this matter, because people laugh and make gibes at him. We are a very hypocritical nation, and in nothing more so than in this particular matter. We must realise the the equality of all classes in the community, and that the working men have the same rights as those who are better off. Now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has closed up the tide of Spanish wines, he will not lose a single shilling of revenue if he accepts this Clause. He will certainly regain some of the popularity he has lost through the Betting Duty and one or two other things, and he will establish a debt of gratitude in the hearts of vast numbers of people for at least reducing an iniquitous, penal and prohibitive tax to a reasonable figure.

Mr. McNEILL: My hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken is of all people qualified to bring before the Committee the particular Clause which he has moved.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I mention this fact, that in Campbelltown there are 18 empty distilleries not working, and several thousands of people unemployed as a result of this duty.

Mr. McNEILL: I was going to observe that my hon. and learned Friend represents probably the best whisky-producing area, with one exception, in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but he appeared just now to be rather representing the interests of the consumers instead of the producers. The aspect of his speech which troubled me most was that he entered upon so many entertaining and amusing topics, and interspersed them occasionally with some very shrewd observations upon physiology, psychology and various other sciences, that I was terribly afraid lest the Committee should think it necessary to follow my hon. and learned Friend into all those ramifications of the sciences. I was afraid that it was almost too much to hope that the Committee would regard his entertaining speech as something for which they might be grateful, and immediately pass on to other business. I did not know whether the Committee would take that view, but I had my eye on the clock, and thought of the small hours of the morning in which we should probably have to carry on our labours unless we could get a little further forward.
I can give a very short answer, indeed, to my hon. and learned Friend. I am not called on, as representing the Treasury, to go into the various questions as to the comparative virtues of whisky and other commodities. I look at the thing from the purely, sternly financial point of view. A little earlier this afternoon, I had to resist, and to ask the Committee to resist, a Clause moved to abolish the duty on sugar, because that would have cost the Exchequer about £19,000,000 in a full year. The Clause which my hon. and learned Friend now asks the Committee to accept would involve a loss to the Exchequer of something over £18,000,000.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Not a bit!

Mr. McNEILL: I have no doubt that I shall incur the complete contempt of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I must risk that, when I say that if I had to choose between losing £18,000,000 on sugar or on whisky I would a great deal rather do away with the Sugar Duty than with the Whisky Duty. It would have been very gratifying if it had been possible to accept the proposal to do away with the Sugar Duty. My hon.
and learned Friend says that we shall lose no revenue. The only way by which you can avoid losing revenue if you reduce taxation on a commodity is by an increase of consumption. In order to neutralise the financial loss which this Clause would bring upon us, we should have to have an increase of 130 per cent. in consumption. I look on my hon. and learned Friend as a humourist but, nevertheless, he is a very shrewd man of the world, and I would really ask him, if he can be serious for two minutes, to consider—I am not asking him to say it, because I do not want to invite him to speak again—whether seriously anybody can stand up in the House of Commons and say that he can look with equanimity on an increase of 130 per cent. in the consumption of whisky next year? The proposition only requires to be stated in that way to convince the Committee that the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend should be rejected, and I most respectfully repeat the hope that the Committee may silently pass a vote of thanks to my hon. and learned Friend for his entertainment, and let us get on to something else.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: Major Hills.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Do I understand that you have passed over my Clause—[Amendment of Section 15 (1) (a) of Finance Act, 1926]?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The effect of the new Clause would be to alter the rate of the duty from 3½ per cent. to 2½ per cent. At the present time the tax on what is called course betting is at the rate of 2 per cent., and to raise that tax to 2½ per cent. would increase the charge to that extent on certain individuals and is consequently out of order.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Credit betting is about 80 per cent. of the whole betting, and the tax on that is 3½ per cent. My proposal is to reduce this to 2½ per cent. I do propose to increase the 2 per cent. on course betting to 2½ per cent., but on the whole there would really be a considerable reduction.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: While it takes the duty off in some cases it imposes it in others.

Sir H.CAUTLEYM: On the same sort of articles.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: On the same articles, but on different individuals.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Allowance for cost of education.)

(1) Where any individual shows that the cost to him of the education of any child in respect of whom a deduction is allowed under Section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1920, exceeds the amounts as stated in that Section, he shall be entitled, in addition to any reduction of the assessment for the purposes of collection, on making a claim for the purpose, to repayment of the amount of the tax on the excess.

(2) The sum on which repayment of the amount of tax can be claimed under this Section shall not, in the case of any individual child, exceed the difference between the sum allowed by deduction under Section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1920, in respect of that child and the actual cost of education of the said child incurred during the year in which the assessment for Income Tax has been made.

(3) All the provisions of the Income Tax Acts which relate to claims for any allowance or deduction or the proof to be given with respect to those claims shall apply to claims for repayment under this Section and the proof to be given with respect to those claims.—[Major Hills.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.0 p.m.

Major HILLS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object is to increase the allowance for the education of children over the amount given by the Finance Act, 1920. By that Act, a parent was entitled to deduct £36 in the case of the oldest child, and £27 for every subsequent child. By my Clause I increase that amount, and allow the parents to deduct the whole cost of the education, or rather, the excess of the cost over the £36 and the £27, respectively. This affects all classes of Income Tax payers. I know that the Income Tax payer is not always a very popular character in this House, but would point out to the Committee that the census returns show that the birth rate of the skilled class is much lower than that of the unskilled class. As far as we can tell, from the census of 1921, the difference is being accentuated. The first point I want to bring to the notice of the Committee is that the birth rate of the more skilled class is falling. Unless a married couple have three children, the whole of the stock will
perish, for three children is the smallest family than can keep the stock going. When a married couple, with an income of from £400 to £600 a year, have a dependent child, the cost of that child is at least 10 per cent. of the income. I think it is a good deal more, and that for an income of £600 the child costs more than £60. Put it at £60, or 10 per cent., and the present abatements on the lower incomes are round about 1 per cent. in value—I mean that the value of the abatements at a given time in respect of children works out at somewhere about 1 per cent. of the taxpayer's income for the lower income. Of course, when you come to the higher income, the abatement being a fixed sum the percentage is much smaller. I think the cost of education should be deducted from the assessable income. I want to see the birth-rate increased. Although the concession would not be a very big one, still it would be something, but I look more to its psychological effect; I look more to the effect which it would produce in the minds of the people who have children, the cost of educating whom will be made not so serious a charge upon their incomes. I do not want to stint the education of the children, and I would particularly point to the effect that the Amendment would have upon the cost of university education, of that valuable part of education which is given in the last years. Unless you take off from the assessable income the amount spent on the last part of education, the cost of university education, there is a great risk that the children will not be sent to the university, and a large part of what has been spent on their primary and secondary education would be wasted. I want to see all boys and girls who are suitable for it being enabled to go right to the end of their educational course; I do not want it to be stopped at the age of 14 or 16. Surely it would pay, and pay many times over, to submit to the small loss of revenue which this concession would involve if we could at the same time encourage the fertility of certain classes of the community who are not now contributing their fair quota of the population and encourage parents to continue the education of their children up to the university stage.
I hope my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury may have
some words of comfort for me. There is a very strong case for this concession. When the original concession was made in 1920, the Income Tax was six shillings in the £ and therefore the loss to the Revenue in taking off the amount which I now propose would be less than it was then. I do hope that my right hon. Friend will have some words of comfort for me and that he will make the concession which I propose.

Mr. McNEILL: My hon. and gallant Friend twice repeated that he hoped I would have some words of comfort for him, but I am sorry to have to tell him that I have none. I must point out that this new Clause has a fantastic aspect which he does not seem to suspect. The indisputable thing about it is that the advantage that it gives is in inverse proportion to the merits of the particular claimants. In addition to that, the wealthier the person is the more advantage he will get.

Major HILLS: But not in the percentage.

Mr. McNEILL: As far as I can gather, it would practically be of no advantage at all to the poorer classes who, in any case, cannot afford to send their children to the more expensive schools. My hon. and gallant Friend puts no limit, no maximum at all. Alter allowing for the existing deduction from the Income Tax, which is a very moderate sum, then the whole of the rest of the money to be spent on the education of the child is to be treated also as a deduction. That is to say, a man who sends his child to an expensive school, which might cost him £300 a year, claims his deduction, and, under my hon. and gallant Friend's Clause, he would get the advantage of sending that boy to Eton partly at the expense of the State. That appears to me to be a fantastic proposal. If he had suggested a limit or a maximum, there might have been something to be said for it; but, as it has been proposed, there is nothing to be said for it. It would actually mean, in many cases, that under the Clause the State would be contributing to the cost of the education of the wealthy. My hon. and gallant Friend says that the cost to the revenue would be trifling. How does he know that? We have not been able at the Treasury to form any estimate of what
the cost would be, but it appears to me that, if the Clause were passed in the form in which it has been moved, the cost to the Treasury might be very considerable, and it would be given to those who least require help.

Mr. HAYDAY: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I feel that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this new Clause has started from the wrong basis entirely. He spoke about the necessity of encouraging people who are not contributing their fair quota to the country, and he said that his proposal would be an inducement to them because it would free them from some financial liability. I would suggest to him that it would be much better if there was a greater amount allowed for the children at present existing. Let him start on that. It often happens that in the case of a brilliant child, who is one of a large family, where the income may bring the parent within the taxable limit, the margin is often so small and the sacrifice that is called for is so great, that the tendency is to yield to the temptation to put the boy or girl into industry at the earliest possible time. If the allowances for the children were sufficiently generous, with a little more sacrifice the parent would be anxious and ready to cultivate the educational tendencies of the child rather than to use him or her to augment a limited income.
There was a time when the spaces on the Income Tax papers were not sufficiently numerous for me to put in my claim. In a case of that sort, you would have been helping me, and people like me, with an income that brought them, apart from the number of children, within the taxable limit. If you had given us greater freedom by an increased allowance before Income Tax was demanded, there would have been a greater chance for those children as they grew up. If there is only one child in the family up to, say, 16 years of age, and the income was £300 to £400 a year, that child might be sent to an expensive school. It may be that a well-to-do middle-class parent with a small family responsibility may be able to give to one of his children an expensive education, and, under this proposal, he would get more in rebate than I would get with six children. It is too one-sided. If there is to be any variation
in allowances to encourage the building up of our population, and to free the parent from anxiety when the child shows educational tendencies, you must give a larger allowance where the handicap on the parent is great, and not give so freely where the handicap is less.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I think quite one-half of the speech of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) was actually in favour of the proposed new Clause. I do not think that it was quite fair for the right hon. Gentleman—he is always very fair, but on this occasion I think he rather departed from his usual fairness—to bring in the case of parents sending their children to Eton. How many parents send their children to Eton? It is not a question of the limited few who send their children to the great public schools.

Mr. McNEILL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to know that I mentioned Eton as a typical case. It does not refer in the least to particular individuals who go to that school. If he likes to substitute for Eton the words "an expensive establishment" he is welcome to do so.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Let us say an expensive school. What of it? The idea of this Clause is to try to make up for the loss of child life in the country owing to the burdens that successive Governments have placed on the taxpayers. We sometimes hear from the advocates of birth control, that if only you raise the standard of life of the people it will not be necessary for those measures to be taken.

It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by the direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL

[Lords]. (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

The following Motion stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. H. WILLIAMS:

That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to incorporate in
Clause 55 of the Bill the following, proviso:

(2) Provided that if the corporation themselves provide or arrange for the provision or carrying on of stage plays or cinematograph performances under the provisions of this Section they shall (unless otherwise authorised by Act of Parliament) either—

(a) Let the public hall, pavilion, assembly room, or other building in consideration of the payment to them of a sum or sums of money; or
(b) Enter into an arrangement under which a share in the gross or net receipts in respect of the production of such stage plays or cinematograph performances shall be credited to them.

And the corporation shall not, under the provisions of this Section, undertake any liability for any loss that may be occasioned in the production of any such stage plays or cinematograph performances."

Mr. SPEAKER: Before I put the Question, "That the Bill be read a Second time," I ought to inform the House that the Instruction is out of order. Hon. Members will find, if they refer to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, page 712, that in 1909 my predecessor ruled an Instruction out of order, just like this one, on the ground that it dictated to a Committee the express terms of a Clause to be inserted in the Bill before the Committee had had an opportunity of considering the Bill. There are other Rulings on the subject, but I need only quote that one.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The decision you, Sir, have just announced, of which those concerned had a previous intimation, put us naturally rather in a difficulty. because we have no objection to the Bill as a whole, but only to one Clause. It was to deal with that Clause only that the Instruction was put down. With profound respect, we feel it to be a little grievance that we did not have an earlier intimation, so that we might have put down an Instruction in a form which Would have been in order, similar to Instructions moved on other Bills dealing with the point. As we do not desire to hamper the general progress of the Bill, and as I understand it is not in order to give manuscript notice of an alternative form of Instruction, we are not going to oppose the Second Reading.
I am only going to express the hope that the Committee upstairs may take full account of the special circumstances affecting the class to which the Instruction related.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

Further considered in Committee.

Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair].

NEW CLAUSE.—(Allowance for cost of education.)

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman rather misled the Committee I thought. Anyone listening without very great attention would suppose that the Clause refunded to this wealthy person the whole amount he spent on the education of his child. I was temporarily misled and had to look at it again. All it does is to allow back the Income Tax on the amount spent on the child's education, whether at an expensive school, a grammar school, a secondary school or a cheaper school. That is not a very great amount and it only affects comparatively a small number of people. But do you want to encourage parents to continue the
education of their children? My hon. Friend was in favour of the Clause. He wants to encourage parents to keep their children at school and to sacrifice so much for the education of the child right up to the university rather than yield to the temptation of having the child going out and earning money. Do we want to encourage that or not? I hope my hon. Friends on these benches will not allow anything in the nature of setting rich against poor to play upon them. We are told by the people who advocate birth control that if we had enough good things in this world and there was no poverty, it would not be necessary to teach poor people birth control. Here you have this clam of the community that is earning from £500 to £800 a year. It is ground down by the cost of living and taxation. It is
not having families. The usual thing is one, two or three children and very few more. Do you want to encourage these people to bring children into the world? They can bring them up in healthy surroundings and they ought to be able to give them a good education. Taking the broadest view, is that to the advantage of the State? Is it right to encourage those people? Is it worth doing for the comparatively trivial amount the Chancellor of the Exchequer will surrender? I suppose the amount would work out at the cost of one week of the Shanghai Defence Corps. How many young men in Shanghai, potential fathers of the future, are going to be ruined-however, I will not stress that point. The right hon. Gentleman was unsympathetic. This is a very big subject my hon. and gallant Friend has tackled, and I hope he will pursue it. I hope he will use his great and deserved influence in his party to create interest in the matter. I do not suppose my hon. and gallant Friend will press the matter to a Division. This is missionary work that he and I are doing, and I hope our missionary work will make converts of many in the future, and even of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The Mover of the Clause is not going to press it to a Division so there is no point in continuing the discussion, but unless he and my hon. and gallant Friend can indicate where some of the hundreds of thousands of working class children are likely to obtain some educational advantages as the result of the passing of a Clause of this kind, I fear they are not likely to get the universal support of Members on these benches..

Major HILLS: The effect of my Clause will be this. The coat of education, over the £36 at present. allowed for the first child, will come off the Income Tax on income at a comparatively low level upwards. It does not only apply to the rich people. It gives a larger proportion of relief to the lower incomes.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Of the 15,000,000 to 18,000,000 workers there are at least 90 per cent. whose wages do not touch the Income Tax level at all, assuming those persons have only one or two children. For instance, the amount allowed for a married man and his wife,
£225, exceeds the wages of 80 to 90 per cent. of 10,000,000 or 15,000,000 people, and consequently the Clause will have no value to that class, which is a large section, and what I rather fear would be the result is not that one desires to set a class against a class, but that such Motions as this tend to solidify a particular small class as against a bigger class. After all, if we are to take the national point of view, I quite agree educational advantages ought to be provided whenever they can, but in a universal way and certainly not in a small circumscribed way on lines similar to this. I have in mind the annual Debate that takes place on the Army and Navy Bill, where we find that the students who are sent to Dartmouth College, at a probable cost to their parents of some £300 per annum, are exclusively drawn from the very wealthy section of the community. No working man's child, no matter how bright a specimen he may be, no matter what his educational attainments may be, purely because of economic circumstances in his home, has a ghost of a chance of obtaining one of the seats at any of the colleges that provide officers for the Army and Navy. Therefore, unless any concession that is going to cost I do not care whether it is hundreds of thousands or millions is going to dribble through to the lowest layer of the community, one would hesitate before giving approval to a Motion of this kind, because the division between the poor section, the middle-class and the wealthiest class of all is already far too great. I want to suggest that though the hon. and gallant Gentleman may honestly desire to provide additional facilities for certain classes of children we ought to do something on broader and more national lines. We ought to try and extend greater educational facilities to the poorest of the poor who have few facilities for real educational development instead of attempting to extend the advantages enjoyed by a comparatively small class of the community.

Question "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Deduction for costs of maternity.)

(1) Where any individual shows that he has during the year in respect of which an assessment of Income Tax has been made upon him incurred expenditure due to the
confinement of his wife, including the fees of physicians and nurses and other costs immediately attributable to the confinement he shall, on making a claim, for the purpose be entitled to repayment of the amount of the tax on the expenditure so incurred.

(2) All the provisions of the Income Tax Acts which relate to claims for any allowance or deduction or the proof to be given with respect to those claims shall apply to claims for repayment under this Section, and the proof to be given with respect to those claims.—[Major Hills.]

Major HILLS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Though I did not get the support of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) on the last new Clause, I am quite certain that I shall get it on this one, for this new Clause allows the father to deduct from his Income Tax return the cost of his wife's confinement, and that deduction is to be allowed whatever may be the number of children. It becomes an increasing benefit, not according to the wealth or position of the parent, but according to the number of the family. This is meant for the encouragement of children. The hon. Member for Don Valley complained that nothing was proposed to be done on the last occasion in respect of those whose incomes were below the Income Tax limit. I submit to him that the class at the bottom of the Income Tax ladder is a very valuable class. It represents people on their way up in the world, and it is very important that they should be encouraged and produce children. The more children they produce, the bigger the family, and therefore there would be less chance of that family becoming extinct. I said a short time ago that unless there were three children to each married pair the stock would die out.
I do not know whether I can expect or hope for any more favourable treatment from my right hon. Friend, but I would put this to the Committee. The cost of confinement is a very heavy cost, and a bigger proportionate cost to parents with small incomes. Though the parents with a small income may not have an expensive doctor and nurse, the proportionate cost is much greater. Therefore, this Clause does fulfil all the requirements that the hon. Member for
Don Valley thought should be attached to a reform of this sort. It is one that encourages the production of large families, and it is one which benefits, especially, the poorer families. In the hope that this smaller concession may meet with a more favourable reception, I beg to move the Clause.

Mr. McNEILL: I am afraid I must say "No" to this new Clause, as I did to the last one. I cannot see any reason why my hon. and gallant Friend desires to move this particular Clause, which appears to be a sort of converse to birth control, for his purpose here is to encourage an increase of population. Apart from anything else, that is not the function of taxation. However desirable it may be to increase the population, I submit that it is not the function of the Treasury, not the function of taxation, to promote movements of that sort.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why do we have children's allowances at all? Why are the present children's allowances permitted by the State?

Mr. McNEILL: They are not allowed for the purpose of encouraging large families at all. They are to enable the parent of the family to discharge his duty to his family, which is quite a different thing. This Clause is open to exactly the same objection as the last one. That is to say, the less the claimant requires the more he gets. It is an encouragement to people to be very reckless in regard to the class of medical attendance and nursing and nursing homes they select. They go to a very fashionable ladies' doctor and a very fashionable neighbourhood and take very expensive rooms in a nursing home in the neighbourhood of Cavendish Square—and all this expense my hon. and gallant Friend's wants, to a certain extent, to be borne by the State. That is to say, part of the expenses so incurred are to be a deduction from the tax which otherwise they would have to pay. I see no reason for that whatever. Why, if a man is to be assisted in this particular way with regard to taxation on account of the confinement of his wife, apart altogether from my hon. and gallant Friend's objects, should he not get similar assistance in other ill-nesses
much more dangerous and probably more onerous from the financial point of view?
Look at the sort of demands that immediately would be made on the Treasury. I have no doubt there are heaps of hon. Members here who could bring very hard cases. They could bring forward cases within their own knowledge perhaps of men in very straitened circumstances whose wives required a very dangerous operation which could only be performed, perhaps, by some very skilful and expensive surgeon. Why should a man be denied that particular assistance, if his neighbour, when in the ordinary course of nature his wife goes through a confinement—a very much less dangerous situation than that of many requiring surgical treatment—could get assistance in the way proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend? I think on that ground alone we ought to resist this proposal. I am fortified again by the views of the Royal Commission very often quoted in this House. Hon. Members will no doubt remember the passage to which I refer. I will read it to the Committee, because it lays down a very important principle.
We have been asked to recommend allowances for expenses arising out of illness or disability, such as the travelling expenses of attendants of disabled persons; or to give compassionate rebate to persons who are compelled to maintain and pay personal attendants; or special relief to disabled persons in view of their decreased earning capacity. These claims, while differing in degree, all arise out of the personal or domestic circumstances of the taxpayer, and although we are conscious that in particular cases the operation of the general rule may result in individual hardship, we feel that we cannot advise any general relaxation of the principles on which the tax is levied.
That is a very sound principle which I think the House of Commons ought to maintain, otherwise we shall be met with all kinds of demands for those hard cases which, when they are recited in this House, arouse every one's sympathies. Unless the House of Commons lays down some very definite financial rule upon which we must impose taxation, instead of allowing themselves to be swayed by sentiment or appeals, however sincere and eloquent they may be, we shall only get into great difficulties. I hope the Committee will support the Government in refusing this request.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The Financial Secretary has not met the point at all. This is not a question of compassion. We are not citing hard cases. We are citing the case of men with meagre incomes, young people who before they become engaged discuss the question as to whether they shall have a a family or not. They certainly discuss the question after they are married. They sum up the cost. It is the cost which prevents them. The ordinary minded man and woman on getting married wants to have children, but the cost is a deterrent. They decide that it is too expensive, that is the only reason for their not having children. Is that a good thing for the State? Do we want to encourage these people to have children, or do we not? I thought the Conservative party was the great Imperialistic party and that they wanted a great young vigorous stock to spring up.

Mr. McNEILL: Hear, hear!

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The Financial Secretary agrees. The intention of this Clause, it may need improvement, is to encourage young people who marry to have children. It is not proposing to give a compassionate allowance to the sick and imbecile, but to encourage young healthy people to bring families into the world for the good of the State.

Mr. McNEILL: If the hon. and gallant Member thinks that that is what I said, or whether he is merely using his genius as a dialectician, I do not know, but I said nothing of the sort. I pointed out that these hard cases would have a, much greater claim than the young couple.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Gentleman read from the Report of the Royal Commission, and he said that he would prefer to grant a rebate to the old people with one foot in the grave than to pay for this attendance. He would not give any encouragement at all. We should take an Imperial view of this matter; that the State should do something to help young couples who are getting married to have children. Perhaps we shall make a little progress before next Friday.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of 10 and 11 Geo. V, c. 18, s. 21.)

Section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1920 (which provides for a deduction from assessable income in respect of children), shall have effect as if for the words "thirty-six pounds" and "twenty-seven pounds," there were substituted, respectively, the words "seventy-two pounds" and "fifty-four pounds.—[Major Hills.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Major HILLS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I now come to the most modest of my proposals. I have had a very unfortunate career so far, but I hope I shall have better fortune for this very modest proposal. It only seeks to double the allowance that was granted under the Act of 1920. When that Act was passed, Income Tax was at 6s. in the pound, and therefore, to take off £36 when the Income Tax is at 6s. in the pound is worth a great deal more than taking it off when it stands at 4s. in the pound. Some increase is due. I do not say that I expect to get the whole of the £72 or the £54, for the first child and subsequent children, but I do say that some increase is due, for the rebate has lost one-third of its original value. I do not think the condition of the world has improved by one-third, and the need of the rebate is greater now than it was in 1920, yet it is worth one-third less. It is a very small amount. I have some figures here. If you take an income of £370 a year, the annual saving in income for the first child is £3 12s.; the saving in income is about one per cent. of the income—and it stays at about that figure up to incomes of £700 a year. Those are all the abatements for children inclusive.
The cost of a child's education is usually reckoned at 10 per cent. of the parents' income, so the existing rebate comes only to one-tenth of the cost of the child's education. Suppose this was doubled, as I suggest, it would only be 2 per cent., and that is one-fifth of the cost of the education of the child. The Financial Secretary has said that it is not the business of taxation to encourage children. I am not quite so sure about that. There are all sorts of ways in which the State encourages children. There is the rebate for children in the 1920 Act, which was a direct encouragement. Children are not brought into the world because their keep and education
is too expensive. It is the more provident parents who restrict the birth-rate, and it is the improvident person who does not. The provident parents say, "We cannot support more than one child, and therefore we will be content with one." Here I give the benefit by a lump sum of rebate and I cannot be charged, as I was on the last two Clauses, that I am giving the greatest benefit to the richer person—I do not admit it for a moment. Although the actual cost of the confinement may be a good deal more in the case of a rich man whose wife is confined, than it is in the case of a poor man's wife, yet the cost in the case of the poor man is more in proportion to his income than it is in the case of the richer man, and, therefore, the burden on the poor man is far greater than it is on the richer man. In this case, I cannot be open to that charge, because I simply ask that you should increase the sum which the parent is allowed to deduct in respect of his dependent child, and I suggest that the amount should be increased from £36 to £72 in the case of the first child and from £27 to £54 in the case of the subsequent children.

Mr. McNEILL: For the third time running my hon. and gallant Friend has put me to the great pain of having to refuse him something. As he persists in regarding it as part of the function of taxation to encourage larger families, I must repeat my opinion that that is no concern of the fiscal system of this country. It may be a very important matter for consideration in other connections, but certainly the fiscal system is the very last subject on which birth control or the absence of birth control properly arises. I must say I think my hon. Friends who support these proposals are utterly mistaken in the view which they take and which has prompted this series of proposed new Clauses.
Their idea is that these rebates in taxation are to be justified on the ground that there appears to be a falling-off in the rate of increase of the population. All writers on vital statistics emphatically contradict the view underlying the assumption of my hon. Friends that the falling-off is in that part of the population which most requires financial help in the form of these comparatively small sums. As a matter of fact the decrease
in the size of families, whether one welcomes it or deplores it, is found among the wealthy classes. It is not found to any very, very marked extent among the particular class which my hon. and gallant Friend desires to help and which, in a proper way, we all desire legitimately to help. His view in that respect seems to be a mistaken one and at all events, I must repeat that we could not give that help in the particular way which he suggests, namely, by way of deduction for Income Tax purposes. My hon. and gallant Friend came forward with this proposal in the guise of Oliver Twist asking for a little more; but later on he was more like the Fat Boy because he made the flesh of the Treasury creep when he said there was no considerable cost attaching to it. As a matter of fact, the proposed new Clause would cost £4,500,000, a very substantial sum which, in present circumstances, supplies a strong argument against the proposal. If my hon. and gallant Friend persists I must ask the Committee to reject the proposed new Clause on the ground that the cost to the Exchequer is too great and that the principle which he seeks to introduce into our system of taxation seems to be entirely mischievous.

Mr. HAYDAY: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) will press this matter to a Division. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken seemed to imply that the proposed new Clause was moved with a wrong desire but this is not a question of birth control or of larger families. It is a question of the principle which was originally introduced when these allowances were first made. The allowances embrace a wide range of persons in the country and have no relation specially to the well-to-do or to the middle-class or to the better paid class of artisans. They would all be brought within the ambit of a decision based on the lines of the proposed new Clause. We have learned that the value of the concession is now one-third less than it, was at the time when the allowance was fixed at the present figure. Perhaps the Financial Secretary does not fully realise that there are classes of artisans who come within the taxable income limit and who make their payments Quarterly or half-yearly. It would be to their advantage if these allowances were somewhat increased. Quite apart from the question of an
increased population, there is the fact that from 1914 onwards the State encouraged and gave facilities for marriage among those who had been called to the colours. The hardships which ensued to those people when they settled down again and were brought within the Income Tax limit, led to the original allowances being made but we are now 13 years away from the commencement of the War.
It does not follow that things have improved so much that parents have been relieved to any extent of their responsibilities for the maintenance and education of their children. There is a new outlook and if you could eliminate anxiety and worry to some extent from the family circle you would have from the present stock a more virile population and a greater desire for education. I am heartily in support of this proposed new Clause for the same reason that I was in opposition to the first of the new Clauses proposed by the hon. and gallant Member. His first proposal dealt with the more wealthy class—the upper middle class or well-to-do class. This proposal aims at the relief of the better-paid artisan, the poorer middle class and that large element, the small shop-keeping and commercial class, on which the country so largely depends. They have passed through a greater period of anxiety than many others during the years which have followed the making of the original allowance and I earnestly hope that the representative of the Treasury will yet accede to the proposal. Even if it costs £4,500,000 it will have the result, I believe, in the next five years of making the children of the nation grow into more useful citizens because of the increased facilities that will be available for their advancement. I know that the Floor of the House of Commons is the last place in which to barter on matters of finance, but if £4,500,000 be too much to sacrifice, surely the Treasury should make up the deficiency between the value of the original allowance and the value of the present allowance.

Sir JOHN POWER: I feel in a little difficulty about this new Clause. I am in favour of it, but I have been somewhat shaken by the suggestion that it would cost the Exchequer £4,500,000. The right hon. Gentleman said at the end of his speech that this Clause introduces a new principle. Surely that is not so. Surely
the State has recognised for a good many years that children are a certain burden and has made reductions in Income Tax an their account.

Mr. McNEILL: I did not intend to say that this Clause introduced a new principle. I was referring rather to the other two which we had already passed.

Sir J. POWER: I hope we may have some compromise on this matter, because, as has been pointed out, the taxation is a serious matter to young people who are starting married life. Children come along and they have to be educated, and it is a big struggle for their parents to give them that education which they would like them to have. The State benefits directly from the better education of the children, and therefore it cannot be said that any concession the Treasury may make in this respect will be an entire waste. it will help a great many people who at present find life very hard. Taxation is very heavy, rates are very heavy, and it is a struggle for parents to give children something like the same education which they have received themselves. That is the case amongst the clerical and the professional classes. The cost of education has gone up in a most extraordinary way, and many parents belonging to the very best type of citizens we possess are faced with the necessity of sending their children to a school where they cannot receive the same good education which they themselves received. Consequently the children of the lesser-paid professional classes are in danger of losing the status which their parents have acquired, probably after a great deal of trouble and hard work. Therefore, if any compromise could be made and a concession given to this particular class it would certainly redound to the credit of the Government, and would be received with great thankfulness by a very large and deserving section of the population.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: My hon. and gallant Friend and myself are going to carry this Clause to a Division, and I am sure I can appeal to the Labour party to support us, because similar Clauses have been moved by them in previous years, and there is one on the Paper now. After all, the £72 allowance is only for the first child and the £54 for the second. The right hon.
Gentleman has said that it is not the business of the State to encourage family-building, but I believe that the whole basis of society is founded on the family as a unit, and if it is the business of the State to encourage a healthy society, the State ought to foster and encourage family life. Family allowances are given for officers in the Army, Navy and Air Force. Even the Admiralty, of all people, who had always discouraged marriage amongst naval officers, three years ago conceded the principle of granting marriage allowances to naval officers. They took them away afterwards, when the axe fell, but the principle was conceded. Therefore, the State does recognise the family, and has encouraged it in that way. The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) quoted the case of Dartmouth. Several times I have raised in the House the fees charged for naval cadets. Is the hon. Member aware that the majority of naval officers, those without means or without large means, are unable to send their sons to Dartmouth to follow in their fathers' footsteps? That is the case with the naval officer, who cannot be regarded as a wealthy man or as a capitalist, but as a public servant; he cannot afford to send his own children to be educated as he was educated. That is the position of the lower middle class, and, as my hon. Friend said, there are great numbers of artisans and clerks and warehousemen within the Income Tax limit who would benefit by this concession.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that it would cost £4,500,000. I accept the figure, but I should be interested to see how that calculation is arrived at. Is that what it cost in 1920, when Income Tax was 6s. in the £ and the allowance was £36 for the first child and £27 for the second? Did it cost anything like that then? Or is the Treasury actuary calculating on the increase in the birth rate which it is said the hon. and gallant Gentleman and I would bring about by this new Clause? Let us see what £4,500,000 is equivalent to. It is something more than the cost of one of our new cruisers. We have on the stocks at the present time eight cruisers, which, when completed, will have cost £24,000,000. We have just launched two battleships, "Nelson" and "Rodney,"
which, by the time they have finished their trials, will have cost the taxpayers over £7,500,000 each.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member cannot pursue those comparisons any further.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I was not going any further. I only mention that as a comparison, to ask whether it would not be better to spend a sum which is little more than half the cost of completing the battleship "Nelson" on this concession for the benefit of struggling young parents and others. Surely there can be no hesitation as to what the answer shall be, and I hope every one who has heard this Debate will support us in the Division.

Mr. McNElLL: I would like to say one or two words in reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir J. Power)—perhaps I ought to have mentioned them before, but I omitted to do so—seeing that this Clause is to be carried to a Division. This allowance forms part of a very carefully thought-out scheme of graduation of the Income Tax. The whole system of graduation of Income Tax was changed in 1920, because it was found by experience, and it was supported by the Royal Commission, that the old system under which the rate of Income Tax rose by steps as the figure of income rose gave rise to many anomalies and borderline cases. For example, a man with an income of £150 a year or more was on a different level in matters of taxation from a man with only £149 a year. The whole of this system was gone into in 1920, and there was a personal allowance of £135 for an unmarried person, a personal allowance of £225 for a married couple, an allowance of £60 for a widower who had a female relative to look after his children, and so on. That was all carefully thought out, and, so far as it is possible in such a case to say that it was scientific, it was a scientific system for graduating the incidence of Income Tax. It was recommended by the Royal Commission, and it represented a serious attempt to deal with the question of graduation as a whole, and to apportion the burden of the tax according to the ability of the taxpayers, regard being had both to the amount and nature of their incomes and
to their family responsibilities. That was the principle upon which these allowances were founded.
My hon. and gallant Friend now wants to take one of these allowances only, and double it. It is easy, of course, to come to the House and make a very strong and plausible case for a concession of that kind. Anyone can do that, and can stir people's sympathies; but it is really rather a serious responsibility to support something which makes an inroad into the whole system of graduation, and will upset its balance. If this Clause were carried, apart altogether from its immediate effects upon the Exchequer, which,

as I have explained, I think would be very undesirable, it would have the much worse effect of vitiating the balance of the whole system of Income Tax graduation; and my hon. and gallant Friend must, I am sure, appreciate what a very serious matter that would be in regard to the whole system of taxation in this country. I hope very much that he will not think it necessary to divide on this Clause, and that, if he does, my hon. Friends on this side will not support him.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 152.

Division No. 248.]
AYES.
[9.9 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayes, John Henry
Rose, Frank H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scrymgeour, E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hills, Major John Walter
Scurr, John


Baker, Walter
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barnes, A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Cove, W. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawson, John James
Sutton, J. E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. A.


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, F. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Day, Colonel Harry
Livingstone, A. M.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dennison, R.
Lowth, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Edge, Sir William
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacLaren, Andrew
Wellock, Wilfred


England, Colonel A.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Welsh, J. C.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacNelli-Weir. L.
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, J. P.
Maxton, James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Murnin, H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wright, w.


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.
Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and Mr. Hayday.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)



NOES.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Christie, J. A.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W- Derby)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Clayton, G. C.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Atholl, Duchess of
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Cohen, Major J. Brunei


Atkinson, C.
Buchan, John
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Cope, Major William


Balniel, Lord
Burman, J. B.
Couper, J. B.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Campbell, E. T.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Bennett, A. J.
Carver, Major W. H.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Bethel, A.
Cassels, J, D.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Blundell, F. N.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Ellis, R. G.


Briggs, J. Harold
Chapman, Sir S.
Elveden, Viscount


Briscoe, Richard George
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Salmon, Major I.


Fielden, E. B.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Finburgh, S.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Ford, Sir P. J.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Savery, S. S.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Shepperson, E. W.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Lamb, J. Q.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Looker, Herbert William
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.'C.)


Galbraith, J. f. W.
Lumley, L. R.
Smithers, Waldron


Ganzonl, Sir John
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Gates, Percy
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Storry-Deans, R.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Goff, Sir Park
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Grace, John
Malone, Major P. B.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Meller, R. J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Merriman, F. B.
Tinne, J. A.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Meyer, Sir Frank
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Watts, Dr. T.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wells, S. R.


Hawke, John Anthony
Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Perring, Sir William George
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Withers, John James


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Womersley, W. J.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Radford, E. A.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Hurd, Percy A.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)



Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Remer, J. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Captain Margesson 2nd Mr. Penny.


Jacob, A. E.
Rye, F. G.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of 10 Ed. VII, c. 8.)

Notwithstanding anything contained in this or any other Act to the contrary, the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, Schedule 1 (c) (Provisions applicable to retailers' off-licences, Spirits (2) Minimum quantity of spirits to be sold), shall be deemed to have effect as if, in lieu of the words "one reputed quart bottle," there were inserted the words "one reputed pint bottle," and accordingly the minimum quantity which may be sold by a person holding the off-licence to be held by a retailer of spirits shall be, in England and Wales, one reputed pint bottle.—[Sir F. Meyer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir FRANK MEYER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In this new Clause we are travelling a considerable way from the question which the Committee have been discussing during the past hour. We have been dealing with families and children. Now we come to the question of half bottles. The Committee will agree with me that to discuss the question of half a bottle may be a very pleasant occupation, but perhaps this place is not the most suitable one for discussing half bottles. Nevertheless, this new Clause, which has been moved on many occasions, is one to which I and a number of my hon. Friends on this side of the House attach
considerable importance. It is somewhat in the nature of a hardy annual. Hitherto, this hardy annual has been withered by the cold blast of Government disapproval. I am hopeful that after hearing the arguments in favour of the change and what I believe to be the overwhelming sentiment in all quarters of the House, the Government may see fit to make some concession in the matter. Hitherto, in my requests for any concession I have met with very cold comfort. The Chancellor of the Exchequer—whose absence we all deplore, and who has worked very hard during the past few days and deserves a short and very well earned rest—considers this matter of very small importance. After all, it is only a question of half a bottle. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a man of large ideas, and perhaps if we had been discussing a magnum or even a rehoboam we might have had a more satisfactory answer.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has indicated to me that he views this proposal with disapproval. From what he has told me, and from a careful study of the Debates on this question during the past few years, I have not been able to gather what is the real reason that prevents the Government from granting this request. The answers that are given remind me somewhat of a remark in that
well-known book, "Alice in Wonderland." The Committee will remember a certain poem where a messenger was sent for fish and the little fishes' answer was: "We cannot do it, Sir, because." That is as far as it goes. The reasons which have been given in reply to this proposal in the past remind me somewhat of that inconclusive answer. When the proposal was brought forward in 1924, and pressed to a Division, during the period of office of the Labour Government, the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, adduced several reasons against it. Those arguments were not quite up to the usual standard of his admirable logic and clarity, because he combined the two arguments that this proposal would be contrary to temperance and would be a reduction of revenue. How those two arguments can be combined at the present time I am unable to see.
The Committee probably know fairly well what is the present law on the matter. If I briefly re-state it, hope they will pardon me. The present position is that an on-licence holder, better known as a publican or a restaurant keeper, is allowed to sell any quantity of spirits for on or off consumption, however small. The off-licence holder, the wine merchant or the grocer, is not allowed to sell less than a reputed quart of spirits at a time. Anybody who desires to buy less than a bottle of whisky or a bottle of brandy or a bottle of any other spirits is obliged to go to a public-house. If he buys a bottle of whisky at the grocers he can at the same time, buy a half bottle of whisky or a half bottle of brandy, and he might buy two half bottles of whisky or two half bottles of brandy, but he must not buy a half bottle of whisky and a half bottle of brandy at the same time. That seems to me a very curious and anomalous law. Some people may think that that is one of the Regulations made by that tiresome lady known as "Dora," to whom I have sworn implacable opposition. It is not.
This law dates from a period considerably before the War. The supposed justification for it is, that the on-licence holder pays a considerably higher rate, of duty than the off-licence holder for the privileges he has, and that it would not be right for the off-licence holder to poach on those privileges by being able to sell
for off consumption very small quantities of spirits. In other words, people should not be able, to use a vulgar expression, to go to an off-licence holder for a nip. In the days when whisky cost 4s. a bottle—those happy days which the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) would like to bring back, but I am afraid they will never come back; it is more than we can expect—there was, perhaps, some reason in preventing the grocer or the off-licence holder from selling something that cost only 2s. That might have trespassed somewhat on the preserves of the publican. Even in those days I should not have been in favour of that restriction on the rights of the public, because I do not consider that the rights of the public, if they are entitled to buy spirits at all, as I believe they are, should be limited in any way for the benefit of any one class. There might have been some justification in those days but now when whisky costs 12s. 6d. a bottle and brandy anything from 15s. a bottle, and a half bottle costs 7s. or more, nobody can say that permission to go to the grocer or the wine merchant to buy a half bottle of spirits will encroach severely on the rights of the publican to sell small quantities for on or off consumption, for which he pays a higher duty.
Various arguments have been adduced against what appears to most of us to be a very reasonable change, and a change which is demanded by a large section of the public. I have no idea what arguments the Financial Secretary will bring forward on this occasion. I can only judge by the arguments which have been brought forward in the past. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour Government said that the change might affect the revenue. Let us consider, coolly and calmly, how this proposal could affect the revenue. If people were allowed to buy a half bottle of spirits from the grocer as well as from the publican, where they can buy it already, and were not forced either to buy a larger quantity at a time than they desire or to go to a public house to get it, surely it cannot seriously be put forward that that would affect the revenue. When the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury opposed this argument last year. and he brought forward his battalion of arguments, he did not mention that the
change might in any way prejudice the revenue. I do not think that is a position which is tenable for one moment.
A second argument that can be brought forward is the question of temperance. It seems to me a very curious suggestion as a temperance argument, that people should be compelled either to buy more spirits than they intended from the off-licence holder or, alternatively, should go to the public-house for what they want. I see the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour), for whose opinion and sincerity I have the greatest respect, but, with all respect to him, I am bound to say that the argument of the temperance people always seems to me somewhat to lack logic, and if it is to be put forward as an argument that this will lead to intemperance, it will surprise me very much, though I am bound to say it would not surprise me if the Noble Lady (Viscountess Astor), who is not here, were to bring that argument forward. If driven to its logical conclusion, such an argument would lead the temperance reformers to say that the best way to secure temperance would be to make the minimum quantity that you can buy at one time as high as possible, and if it be wrong to let people buy half a bottle, that the best way would be to say that nobody should buy less at one time than a gallon or hogshead, and that that would lead to temperance. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman is going to adopt that line of argument, but I do not think it can be sustained for one moment in the view of commonsense people.
I come to the argument which was brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman last year, and on which, no doubt, he will rely this year, namely, the argument that this Clause would upset the balance of our licensing laws. That is a high-sounding phrase and one which, perhaps, requires rather careful analysis. I take it it means that the balance as between the on-licence and off-licence holders would be unfairly affected, but the Government—not this Government, but all Governments since the War—have already upset that balance. As I have explained, in former days the publican was protected against the sale of 2s. worth of spirits by the grocer, but by
putting on the enormous duties that have been put on spirits in order to raise revenue, during the past few years the Government have already upset that balance. Where as formerly you could not get the 2s. worth, you are not now allowed to get 7s. worth, and whereas formerly the minimum quantity was 4s. worth, it is now 12s. 6d. worth. By that very means all this question of balance between the on- and off-licence holder has already been automatically upset.
In this connection, there is one point to which I would like to draw attention. You often find that our friends from over the border have some advantages, and it will not surprise the Committee to know that in Scotland a man may buy a half-bottle of whisky from a grocer or any off-licence holder. I have no reason to believe that this very ordinary and commonsense privilege has led to any extreme degree of intemperance in that country. In Scotland there are many people who are anxious for temperance reform, but I have never known any of them, even in the most extreme legislative proposals put forward, to bring forward as a temperance proposal, that in Scotland this privilege should be done away with. All we poor dwellers south of the Tweed ask is that we should be granted the same privileges in this matter as exist in Scotland.
I should like to call attention to what occurred in 1924. In that year an identical Clause was brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon), and that was the only time during the past few years on which it was pressed to a Division. The Labour party, officially, opposed it, and they put on their Whips. The proposers of the Clause were not sponsored by the official Opposition Whips, but they put on two private Members. Therefore, it was not incumbent on any Member of the Conservative party to vote for the Clause if they did not desire to do so, and yet practically the whole of the Conservative party voted solidly in the Lobby in favour of it. Seven Members of the present Government voted for it, including, I am bound to say—and I think I may not unfairly say—the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Ten junior Members of the present Government also voted for it, and of the staff
of very able, charming and courteous Whips whom the Conservative party enjoys, no less than eight also voted for it. In addition to that, 93 Conservative Members of the present House, who were in the House at that time, voted for it. That seems to me to show very clearly what was the view of the Conservative party on that occasion, and I must say that a number—not a very large number —of Labour Members on that occasion disregarded the official Whip and voted in the minority. A few of the Liberal party did, too, and I have every reason to believe that had there been a free vote on that occasion the proposal would have been carried by a handsome majority, and it seems clear what is the general feeling of the House on this matter.
I want to emphasise that there is considerable demand from the public for this proposal. I bring it forward, not because I have any particular feeling for the grocer or the wine merchant, and still less any hostility to the publican. I bring it forward in what I believe to be the interests of the public and of the man-in-the-street. I do not see why he should be harassed and fettered by petty restrictions of this kind. I may be told that there is no evidence that the public demand it. It is one of the features of politics at the present time that it is only highly organised bodies which are able to impress upon the politician any strong feeling in favour of or against a Measure. You can always get a show of very strong feeling from a body such as a trade union, a trade association, associations of chambers of commerce, municipal corporations and so on, but surely no one can suggest that anyone would be likely to form an association of members desirous of buying half-bottles? The man-in-the-street, on this subject, just as on other subjects which I have been able to put forward, such as the question of purchasing cigarettes within certain hours and so on, cannot form fresh bodies. He can only express his views in ordinary, every-day conversation, and he does so very forcibly. From some of the letters I have received on this subject, and from conversations I have heard, I am convinced that this is a reform which is desired by a very large number of people.
This is not a party question. Why should it be made a party question? It
is essentially a question of commonsense. I am utterly unable to see why the Government, if they are unable to make this concession, could not at any rate test the feeling of the Committee by giving a free vote. It is essentially a non-party, commonsense question, and until I hear some evidence stronger than has been given in previous Debates, I am bound to say, unrepentingly, I am in favour of pressing this Clause to a Division. I plead for the middle classes and the man-in-the-street who is harassed by taxes and restrictions. I do ask the Government to do something which can do them no harm, and no harm to anyone, especially as it will give some pleasure and satisfaction to the ordinary, common working and lower middle-class man—men going about their business who do not worry much about politics, but who ask to be free from harassing restrictions.
One of the most popular things the Labour party did when they came into office was to allow the taxi-cabs to go through the parks. That was a sensible change, and a concession—not to the very rich class or very poor class, but to large masses of people who were annoyed by what was rather a petty restriction. I do plead with the Government most earnestly and sincerely on this subject, and I ask them to hear the views of many of my hon. Friends and to take the opinion of the Committee by allowing us to have a free vote, and to grant this very minor but, I think, somewhat important reform, which will give satisfaction on a very large scale, which will do no harm, and which will give pleasure to a great many people.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: As a prohibitionist, I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) that the question whether a bottle of whisky is to be a pint or a quart has no real significance to any man or woman who objects to the provision of intoxicating beverages. During the War a stipulation was made in Scotland under which it was necessary to purchase a larger bottle, and all that happened was that the people arranged among themselves who should purchase the bottle and the whole of them provided the funds. We can agree with the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth when he points out that what he complains of is unquestionably an anomaly, and it is not
confined to any particular class of the community. The real question is whether the provision of the thing itself is right. Of course, that is not what we are going to divide upon, but it is worth while emphasising that point. It is often asserted that the line of argument adopted on temperance platforms in regard to this question is that our object is to make it difficult for a person to get the so-called commodity. That is a gross injustice. The temperance party, having supported the providing of a so-called commodity, there can be no objection raised by them on the score of the size of the bottle, the time it is sold, or the people who provide the bottle if you have once agreed that there shall be this particular provision and that you are going to extract from it a certain amount for the national Exchequer. When you raise that difficulty you are not dealing fairly with the general body of the public for whom this provision is said to have been made.
No one who takes up the ground that the provision of the thing itself is wrong is consistent in advocating any question about the size of the bottle being larger or smaller. Therefore those who are concerned about the continuance of crime, which includes the temperance party, must be subject to the criticism of those who have spoken on previous occasions before this Debate took place. Those who represent the prohibitionist aspect of this question contend that to take revenue from that source is objectionable. The hon. Member who made this Motion asked that it might be left to a free vote of the Committee—I know he is very much concerned about tied houses and free houses—but he does not want to place hon. Members in the difficult position of having to vote against the Government. The predecessor of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Snowden) took up the same attitude, and he argued against this proposal upon the basis that it would not in any way operate in favour of temperance. I submit that this proposal has nothing whatever to do with the real moral question, and whatever may be the decision it is a question of the Government selecting the line which they think will operate in favour of the revenue. This proposal does not affect the working classes from the standpoint
of those who are really concerned with the working classes, and you can make the price of the bottle whatever you like.
The people whom the Mover of this new Clause seems to be so anxious about will put out the last piece of furniture in the house to get that bottle, and therefore the business will come in the direction of those about whom my hon. Friend is so much concerned whether it is a free or a tied house. No question of the price enters into this matter at all. It does not matter at what cost because the man who wants the drink says, "Let me have the contents," and he lets everything else go smash. To me it is a very sad spectacle indeed to hear a representative of the Conservative party pleading on behalf of working people to make this provision a pint bottle so as to allow the workers to get that which will satisfy their thirst. The policy advocated seems to be: "Stand by the worker on this occasion; let him have a bottle as frequently as possible, until he is not able to stand at all."

Mr. McNEILL: My hon. Friend who moved this new Clause very properly recalled the fact that a great many of us, including myself, voted in favour of a similar proposal on a former occasion. I have no objection to stating how I came to take my present view of this matter. The reason was that I did not know the facts. I doubt whether my hon. Friend who has moved this Clause, and a good many of my hon. Friends, know the facts. When I say I did not know the facts, I must explain what I mean. The difficulty that many Governments have had in dealing with this particular subject is that there is no principle involved. When my hon. Friend put forward the apparent absurdity—and it is easy to make an apparent and superficial absurdity out of the existing law—it is very natural, when those who are very much interested in one way or another, that they should go into the Lobby in support of it, because they have no strong reason against it. The fact which I did not know then, and do know now—and I think a good many of my hon. Friends are in the same position—is simply this—I want to be perfectly frank—that all Governments for a long time past have rejected this proposal on the principle that what we want is a
quiet life, and they know perfectly well that if they gave way to the proposal made now they would find themselves in a very great number of difficulties. Nobody wants to go out of his way to look for difficulties. We want to avoid difficulties if we can.
The first difficulty is to know quite why the proposal is made, My hon. Friend said he came forward with no particular interest one way or the other. He was the champion of the public and, anticipating that people might say, "How did you know there is such a strong public opinion?'' he said, "You cannot have an association or a league formed for the defence of the half-bottle." It is quite true you cannot, but if that be so, I am rather forced back to the question that jumps to my mind: How is my hon. Friend to know there is any public demand if there is no way of assessing it? After all, we have got at the Treasury certain means of knowing the views of people outside, and I can say honestly, to the best of my knowledge and belief, there is no sort of public demand. I do not think anybody cares about it one way or the other.

Mr. GROTRIAN: I have had largely signed petitions.

Mr. McNEILL: This question goes back to an Act bearing the picturesque title of the Maraschino Act, and the matter has been troubling different Governments in one way or another ever since. What happens is that those who are interested in this particular proposal naturally write to their representative, and get some of their friends to write to their representatives, and it is quite well known how easy it is to get the appearance of a body of opinion pressed upon the representative of a constituency. But many of us are so accustomed to it that we are becoming a little more inclined to scrutinise these evidences of public opinion, and it is my view that there is little or no evidence of what you can call a sense of grievance or any public demand—I mean by a public demand, public from the point of view of those who, in the economic sense, are consumers. I agree that the off-licence holders, probably all over the country, are keen to get this particular restriction swept away, but that does not amount to what can be called public opinion; and these gentlemen who
hold off-licences, when they put their case forward, always put it on all sorts of grounds. They have all a certain amount of weight, but they are not generally the perfectly obvious, face-value grounds.
I had a deputation before me at the Treasury on this very subject more than a year ago, and there were all sorts of reasons put forward. One specially put forward was that in time of genuine sickness, very often a person was ordered a little brandy, and it was very hard lines if he could not get a small quantity at a grocer's shop, and had to submit to the indignity of going to a public house for it. When I suggested to the deputation that it would be possible to meet their view by making an exception in the case of brandy, that was immediately swept away, and I was told that brandy had no particular medicinal value. My well-meant effort to meet this grievance was swept away, and I did not find then, and I do not find now, that there is any real grievance of which they are entitled to complain in not being able to sell a half bottle.
Let me remind the Committee a little as to how this matter arose. My hon. Friend suggested this reductio ad absurdum—why should you not put the limit at a hogshead? The limit was two gallons up to 1861. A change was made by Mr. Gladstone, and no off-licence holder was entitled to sell less than two gallons. That has been, at various times, altered. If my recollection be right, it was fixed at the present minimum in 1909, or some such date as that. You may say it is very easy to make it look absurd by saying: "Why should you be allowed in one place to buy a quart bottle, or a pint bottle, or half-pint bottle if you like, and in the other place you can only buy two pint bottles?" It is really easy to make it absurd and illogical, but you have got to remember that, first of all, the history of it goes back a long time, and it has had some reason in it; and the reason this particular restriction is placed upon the off-licence holder is that the on-licence holder pays a very much higher duty for his licence to sell at all. The off-licence and the on-licence rest on quite different systems of valuation, and in many cases a man who holds an on-licence has to pay double and sometimes, I think, more than double what his competitor across the street who has a grocer's or off-licence
pays. The man who has an on-licence also has to submit to restrictions with regard to the premises where he sells his liquor and is subject to all sorts of regulations, supervision, and control. The advocates of this change, the champions of the off-licence holders, and the champions of the half bottle, have never suggested that if this little remaining difference of privilege were swept away the off-licence holder should pay the same licence as his rival does. In that case, there would be no reason why there should be any difference in the cost of the licence. Under these circumstances, whatever is the logic or lack of logic—and I grant there is very little logic about it—obviously, if you deprive the on-licence man of a difference, which you may say is of no value but which, at any rate, he values, you cannot retain the present position.
I have had communications not merely from individuals but from associations repesenting this trade and industry, and they have let the Treasury know what their views are on matters of this sort. I know perfectly well that if the Government, moved by the advocacy of my hon. Friend and by what I admit is the absurdity of this difference, were suddenly to sweep away that difference and decide that a half bottle might be sold indiscriminately by off- and on-licence holders, I do assure the House that very great difficulties would arise for all of us. It is not a party question, and in all our constituencies you would have stirred up something which at the present time is in the nature of a sleeping dog. Everyone knows, who knows anything of the licensing question in this country, that there is no more thorny question than the licensing law, and men of all parties, once they begin to operate on the licensing laws will find themselves in all sorts of pitfalls and difficulties and hornets' nests, which they would do much better to avoid.
I am not going to suggest that this Clause should be rejected on the ground of any loss of revenue. I do so from the point of view that I have put quite frankly before the Committee, that we do not want to raise this question unnecessarily. I agree with my hon. Friends that, if there was a serious grievance, or if any great branch of
traders were unjustly suffering because of the existing law, then I would say, "By all means let us take our courage in both hands and remove this anomaly, whatever the difficulties may be." That is really how the matter stands and why, year after year, each Government in turn, after looking into the matter and having sources of information as to public opinion upon it, have said, "Leave it alone." I want to leave it alone. I think we ought to follow the lead of those who have gone before and refuse to make this particular change.
10.0 p.m.
My hon. Friend has made a very strong appeal, and I know that there are Members on both sides of the House who feel that there is a strong case for making a change in this matter. But I am in this dilemma for reasons which I am sure the Committee will appreciate. I have got rather a heavy responsibility upon myself to-day. I am only a subordinate Minister; I am not the Chancellor of the Exchequer—a very powerful Minister, who after the strenuous days he has passed through is not available to me for consultation at this moment. My hon. Friend suggested that I should leave this matter to a free vote of the House. I believe myself if the House realised, as I have tried to make it realise, the real facts of the case, that in a free vote it would support the Government in leaving this matter as it is. At the same time, there is this to be said. I do not think that any Government in dealing with a matter of this sort ought to shirk their responsibility, and having regard to our Parliamentary procedure and traditions, to take off the Government Whips would be shirking the responsibility' in a matter which ought to be shouldered by the Government one way or the other. Therefore, I cannot do that. If my right hon. Friend were here, he might choose to do so, but I cannot do it. But I will do this, if it will help to meet the difficulty of my hon. Friend and other Members. If my hon. Friend will be content to withdraw this Clause now, or allow it formally to be negatived, I will promise to urge upon my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider the whole matter. Up to now he has strongly felt that there was really no case, but I will urge it, and I think I can undertake that he will give reconsideration to this
subject before the Report stage is reached, and, if he finds that it is possible for him to do so, he will then come to a definite decision.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I would like to say that I am entirely in favour of the removal of the embargo with regard to the sale of half bottles of spirits to the public, but I do think that after the magnanimous manner in which my right hon. Friend has appealed to us we should give him some consideration. I only want him to know that there are a great many Members in the House who are entirely in favour of this new Clause, and I do sincerely trust that it will not only be a question of bringing the matter before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that on the other hand my right hon. Friend will give it careful consideration and bring the matter up again on the Report stage.

Dr. WATTS: I am exceedingly sorry to take up the time of the Committee at this stage, but I have strong feelings on this matter. I am not concerned with the on or the off-licence; I am only concerned with the comfort of the people. An hon. Member who spoke earlier in the Debate referred to the value of whisky or brandy in the treatment of disease. When I was in active practice some years ago, I met with numerous instances of the difficulties which are entailed by the operation of the law which this Clause seeks to remove. I have seen in my practice in days gone by scores of people, as in the great influenza epidemic, whose lives were entirely saved by the free administration of whisky or brandy. I am speaking from experience. I have known poor people who, in times of stress and illness, have had reason to get a small quantity of spirits, but they have had to go to off-licence premises and pay for a whole bottle. When the crisis was over, they have been left with a large quantity of whisky, and, in their natural satisfaction, they have consumed the whisky, I am sorry to say in some cases with bad consequences.

Colonel GRETTON: I have no interest in this business, and I can speak from the point of view of the public. I do not believe that there is any real opposition in the on-licence trade to this change. The general body of opinion in the on-licence trade, according to my
experience, is that the public convenience ought to be met. In this case I am convinced that there is a real public grievance. The case for the half-bottle of brandy, I think, is quite unanswerable. The case for the half-bottle of whisky may be more difficult, but I suggest to my hon. Friend who has raised the matter that, if this question can be raised again on the Report stage, he will be well advised to withdraw his new Clause and raise it again on the Report stage.

Sir F. MEYER: I feel that I must make my position clear before I state what I am prepared to do. I put this Amendment down some weeks ago, and, at the time I did so, I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would see a small deputation of Conservative Members who wished to explain their views to him. He refused to see us; he said it did not concern him, but that we could see the Financial Secretary. I then approached the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary, and he very courteously said that he would see me and my fellow Members, but that I must understand that he had no power to accept an Amendment, and that the Government were determined not to accept an Amendment. After that, I failed to see how any further approach to the Government could be of any avail, and, therefore, I think I was justified in bringing the question up at this stage. Now that the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary has promised that if I withdraw this Clause he is prepared to give it further consideration between now and the Report stage, I shall be perfectly satisfied to do so, because I think that between now and then the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find the time, which he could not find before, to think the matter over. But I desire, not being well versed in Parliamentary procedure, to know how the position of this Clause can be safeguarded. If I merely put down the Clause again on the Report stage, can I have any guarantee that Mr. Speaker will call it? Therefore, I should desire that those who are more versed than I am in the procedure of the House should assure me that there is some way in which I can be certain of obtaining a discussion on the subject before I formally withdraw the Clause.

Mr. McNEILL: So far as the last point raised by the hon. Gentleman is concerned, of course I cannot give him any assurance as to what action Mr. Speaker may take. That is quite outside my power. I can only say that Mr. Speaker, knowing as he will know what has happened, would not deny to my hon. Friend the opportunity, under these circumstances, of bringing forward his proposal again. The only further thing I can say to assure my hon. Friend in regard to my own undertaking is, that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will communicate with him before the Bill reaches the Report stage and tell him what his decision is. Therefore, there will be plenty of time for him

to put down his new Clause again, either in its present form or in an amended form.

Sir F. MEYER: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I propose to withdraw the Clause, on the understanding that the Government will not put any difficulties in the way of this question being discussed, again on the Report stage.

The CHAIRMAN: Has the hon. Member the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Clause. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 80; Noes, 170.

Division No. 249.]
AYES.
[10.15 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.


Baker, Walter
Hayes, John Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Rose, Frank H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sexton, James


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Cluse, W. S.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Compton, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Connolly, M.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cove, W. G.
Kelly, W. T
Sutton, J. E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kennedy, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Varley, Frank B.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Dennison, R.
Lee, F.
Watts-Morgan, Li.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duncan, C.
Lindley, F. W.
Welsh, J. C.


Edge, Sir William
Lowth, T.
Whiteley, W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gardner, J. P.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gosling, Harry
Maxton, James
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mosley, Oswald
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murnin, H.
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Naylor, T. E.



Grundy, T. W.
Palin, John Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normaton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Mr. Kirkwood and Mr. Buchanan


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


NOES.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Albery, Irving James
Buchan, John
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Burman, J. B.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Ammon, Charles George
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Dalkeith, Earl of


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Dalton, Hugh


Atholl, Duchess of
Campbell, E. T.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Atkinson. C.
Carver, Major W. H.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert


Balniel, Lord
Cassels, J. D.
Ellis, R. G.


Beamish, Roar-Admiral T. P. H.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Elvedon, Viscount


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
England, Colonel A.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)


Bennett, A. J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Blundell F. N.
Chapman, Sir S.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Fielden, E. B.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Christie, J. A.
Finburgh, S.


Briscoe, Richard George
Clayton, G. C.
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fraser, Captain Ian


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gadie, Lieut,-Col. Anthony


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cooper, A. Duff
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Couper, J. B.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Gates, Percy
Looker, Herbert William
Savery, S. S.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Lumley, L. R.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Gillett, George M.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Shepperson, E. W.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Goff, Sir Park
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Gower, Sir Robert
Malone, Major P. B.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Smithers, Waldron


Grant, Sir J. A.
Meller, R. J.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Merriman, F. B.
Storry-Deans, R.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Tinker, John Joseph


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Tinne, J. A.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Harland, A.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury,
Viant, S. P.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hawke, John Anthony
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Watson. Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wells, S. R.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Penny, Frederick George
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Perring, Sir William George
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Eills
Ramsden, E.
Withers, John James


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Womersley, W. J.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Remer, J. R.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)



Lamb, J. Q.
Rye, F. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Laurence, Susan
Salmon, Major I.
Major Cope and Captain Margesson.


Livingstone, A. M.
Sandeman, N. Stewart



Question put, and agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension of s. 19 of Finance Act, 1920, as amended by ss. 21 and 22 of Finance Act, 1924.)

Section nineteen of the Finance Act, 1920 (which makes provision for a deduction in respect of relatives taking charge of widowers' or widows' children), as amended by Sections twenty-one and twenty-two of the Finance Act, 1924, shall be extended so as to apply to a person resident with an unmarried person in the capacity of housekeeper where the unmarried person proves that his income from all sources does not exceed five hundred pounds.—[Mr. T. Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause deals with a very small point, and is designed exclusively for the purpose of removing an anomaly. One thing that emerges from these discussions is that the Financial Secretary is not empowered to make any concession so far, but I am hoping that since this particular Clause deals only with the case of the unmarried woman, perhaps he will reserve a few pounds for this purpose. The position is this. The existing allowances are granted to a widow or widower with one or more children who has female domestic assistance, and to an unmarried person who has for domestic assistance his mother or sister. They are able to
obtain an allowance to the extent of £60 under Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended. The one person, however, who is unable to obtain this £60 allowance is the unmarried woman. For example, the unmarried woman who follows the profession of school teacher is out of her house for many hours during the day, and is called upon to undertake a good deal of study during the evening. If she takes a house on her own account she must, of necessity, have someone to perform the domestic duties. It seems to me that that person should be enabled to obtain the allowance. I do not know what the exact cost of the concession would be, but it seems that there are these anomalous cases in almost every district. For the sake of the unmarried woman who has acquired some profession, who earns her own livelihood and probably keeps one of her sisters to perform the domestic duties of the house. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should accept this Amendment. A limit of £500 income is inserted in the Clause in order to keep the concession, if it is granted, within measurable limits. I hope the Attorney-General, who is in charge of the Bill at the moment, is going to remove this anomaly and secure equitable treatment between all kinds of people who are in exactly similar circumstances.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): The hon. Member has suggested that the new Clause is designed to remove an anomaly, and to put the unmarried woman in the same position as the unmarried man or any such other persons who are entitled to the allowance. He has mistaken, first, the existing law and, secondly, the effect of his proposed new Clause. The existing law is not that an unmarried man without children is able to get the housekeeper's allowance.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I did not quite make that statement. I said that a person who keeps his mother, or his sister or a female relative, to look after one small boy or girl can get the allowance, although unmarried.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: And so can a widow in a like condition. The position is that the new Clause instead of applying only to unmarried ladies who want to have domestic help would, in fact, apply equally to unmarried men who at present have no such allowance, and who by this Clause would be given an allowance which was originally designed to assist widows and widowers if they had some female person to reside with them as housekeeper. I do not think that is desirable, and it is certainly inconsistent with the history of the Clause. When the housekeeper's allowance was first conceded in 1918 it was confined to widowers and widows who had children, the object being to assist a widower or widow who got some woman to look after their children: that they should still have an allowance to cover that expense. It was suggested at that time that the concession should be extended to widowers who had no children, and the matter was fully investigated by the Royal Commission on Income Tax, and They recommended in their Report of March, 1920, that the allowance should be confined to widowers or widows with children. That was intended to provide for the person who had to get in some woman to look after young children whom he or she could not care for personally owing to the loss of a husband or a wife. In 1924 a, concession was made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he was careful to limit that concession, and although he extended the allowance to cases where
there were no young children to be cared for, he still confined it carefully to a widower or a widow.
The present proposal is an illustration of the danger which results from granting a concession in order to meet some particular hard case because the concession granted is at once made a stepping stone towards some further concession which removes the original alleviation far from the case it was designed to meet. The object of the original concession here was to enable a person who had lost husband or wife to find someone to take care of young children so deprived of a natural protector. As I say, in 1924, in response to considerable pressure from some hon. Members who now sit opposite, an extension was made to the case where a widower or widow had no young children, and now it is suggested that wherever an unmarried person keeps a housekeeper, he or she, should be entitled to the allowance, provided his or her total income does not exceed £500. It would produce a remarkable anomaly because the concession, in the case of the widower or widow, is not confined to people with any particular income. You would have the result that the unmarried person who had been a husband or wife would get the allowance, whatever the income, whereas the person who had always been unmarried would only get the allowance if the income was not more than £500. It would also have the odd result that in some cases the person with the larger income would have to pay more in extra Income Tax than the difference between his or her income and the income of a person who would come under the new Clause. For instance, a person with an income of £505 who therefore would not get the allowance, would have to pay £14 more than the person, in like condition, who had an income of £495. Therefore although he would have an extra £10 income, he would be £4 worse off. That illustrates some of the anomalies which would be created and on the grounds that the concession is one which the Royal Commission definitely reported against; that it would create these anomalous positions, and, that it is divorcing the housekeeper allowance from the purpose which it was originally designed to meet, the Government are unable to accept the proposed New Clause.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the Attorney-General's explanation regarding a widower with children complete? Is it not the case that, where a widower with young children sends those children to his mother who has a home of her own, before the Income Tax authorities will allow him anything in respect of the education and nurture of those children they insist upon him having a woman resident in his home? Does not that make for a very curious anomaly and is it not perhaps an insistence on some more or less immoral relationship which the Government contemplate? Will he say if it is the case that the Income Tax authorities do rigidly insist upon that condition that the woman must be residing in the widower's house?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think it is quite true that before you can claim the housekeeper's allowance you have got to prove that you have got a housekeeper. That anomaly, if it be one, would still remain under the proposals in this Clause.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: It may be that the whole thing is so complicated that one can be very dull in putting a plain statement of facts, but I would like to ask the Attorney-General this: Is it not true to say that under existing legislation a widow with one child who spends four-fifths of her time in an educational institution can have some female to perform her domestic duties and obtain the allowance of £60? If that be the case, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the anomaly would be if an unmarried person who is performing her professional duties away from home several hours during the day employed her own sister to perform the domestic duties of the household and if she obtained the same allowance as is granted to the widow? Further, is it not the case that an unmarried male person who has got one small boy or girl dependent upon him and who may for four-fifths of his time be in an educational institution can engage a female to perform the domestic duties and obtain the £60 allowance? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"]

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

Sir F. WISE: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in his place and, also,
as I am sorry for the reason, I do not propose to move my new Clause (Exchange and issues of securities).

NEW CLAUSE.—(Silk Duties—Amendment.)

As from the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, the duties chargeable upon silk, cocoons, and waste of all kinds, undischarged or wholly or in part discharged, and raw silk, un-discharged or wholly or in part discharged, in pursuance of the fourth Section of the Finance Act of 1925 and Part I of the Second Schedule of that Act shall cease.—[Mr. Remer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. REMER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I make no apology for introducing this question of the Silk Duties by moving this new Clause to make the duty more equitable between the different branches of the trade, particularly so as it will cost the Exchequer practically nothing during the existing year. The total revenue raised last year by the particular items which I wish to leave out was £250,000. I think drafting Amendments may be necessary if this Clause is agreed to, in order to adjust drawbacks, but they can be quite easily made if the Chancellor accepts this proposal.
In the hosiery trade there is a very small amount of raw silk which is covered by the omission which I propose, and there is a tax on the fully manufactured article of 33⅓ per cent. In other words, that industry has what I call adequate protection, or what the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls compensation for the inconvenience which the trade is suffering. That industry is in a very good position at the present time. This proposed new Clause is designed to help the silk spinners, who are in a very had position at the present time. The tax on spun silk is 6s. 8d. per 1b., and the drawback on the same article is 7s. 9d. per 1b. As the Committee will quite readily see from these two figures, it pays the manufacturer who uses spun silk, or the London merchant who buys spun silk, if the prices of the two articles are the same, to buy the foreign instead of the British article, because, in that event, he gets a rebate of 7s. 9d. per 1b., whereas, if he buys the British article, he only gets 6s. 8d. per 1b.
Furthermore, as far as the spun silk trade is concerned, little or no protection is given to the spinners of silk; and there is a still further point in favour of this proposed new Clause, in dealing with the exports of silk generally to various countries. The countries to which I refer are Canada, South America, the United States of America and South Africa. In all of those countries there is a dumping law, and the import tax in those countries is payable, not on the price at which the goods are sold there, but on the price at which they are sold in the United Kingdom. As the Committee know, in the Silk Duties there is a tax upon the raw material which makes the price of a silk article in this country higher, and the manufacturers, when they export, receive a drawback on exportation. Consequently, the tax which is paid, when silk goods from Britain are exported to the countries I have named, is charged, not upon the price at which those goods are sold there, but upon the price at which they are sold in this country, and that is equivalent to an increased tariff on those goods as compared with foreign countries who export to those same countries.
It may be said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he introduced these Silk Duties, made a very careful scheme to balance the artificial silk trade and the real silk trade in proper proportion. What the Chancellor really did, at a late stage of the Silk Duties, was to buy off Messrs. Courtauld's very pronounced opposition in the country, but he gave nothing to the people who were his real supporters throughout, namely, the Silk Association, for whom I am speaking in moving this Clause. It was originally proposed that there should be, on artificial silk, an excise of 2s. per 1b. The Silk Association proposed that that should be reduced to 1s. 6d., in order to make the proportion equal. In the face of Messrs. Courtauld's opposition, the right hon. Gentleman reduced the Excise to 1s. The artificial silk people have a very considerable protection, amounting to the equivalent of 16⅔ per cent. The spun silk people have no protection whatever, and are suffering from very severe competition. It must be realised by the whole Committee that there is really no competition as between the artificial silk
trade and the real silk trade, for the very good reason that there is an enormous difference between the price of the two commodities. I will give one illustration. A tie in artificial silk would cost wholesale something like 1s. 9d., whereas in real silk it could not be put on the market at less than 5s. 6d., and the price would be nearer 8s. 6d.
I submit this new Clause with a feeling that if this concession can be granted to the real silk industry it will lead to vastly more employment in places where there is great suffering at the present time through unemployment, particularly in the spun silk trade. Unless something can be done quickly for this particular trade, which has no protection of any kind in the Silk Duties, that trade will disappear altogether. which would be a great pity for the trade of this country. I was told to-day in Macclesfield by a very prominent manufacturer that the Italian manufacturers and the French manufacturers are actually offering spun silk in Macclesfield and district at less than the cost of the raw material to the British manufacturer at the present time. That is entirely caused by the tax on raw material which has been put on by the right hon. Gentleman. I do plead with him very strongly to give this concession, mainly because it will not cost any particular amount of revenue but will do a Brent deal of good in making a complete success of the Silk Duties, which have been a partial success up to the present time.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or a representative of the Board of Trade are not here to reply to the hon. Member, and in their absence I will do the best I can. My hon. Friend said that this Clause is required in order to make a complete success of the Silk Duties, but we are to make a complete success of them by turning them from being revenue duties into protective duties. There are some Members of this House to whom that might not be a consideration which would render his arguments unpalatable, but so long as the Government are bound by pledges upon this subject, it is quite impossible for us to take that course. The actual cost of the proposal it is impossible to estimate with accuracy. In the present year it would probably cost £180,000 and in a
full year £270,000, but it would cost a great deal more presently, because if its objects were achieved it would result in the stimulation of the manufacture of silk in this country and the cessation to that extent of the imports of manufactured silk, which would run into £500,000 or more per annum.
There is another more serious objection to the Clause, and that is that if the concession were granted to the manufacturers of real silk it would be almost impossible to deny a similar concession, in due course, to the manufacturers of artificial silk, because it would be impossible to allow home made natural silk yarn to be free from duty and at the same time to insist on home made artificial silk yarn continuing to pay duty.

Mr. REMER: If I may interrupt, the artificial silk manufacturers have specifically stated they do not want the duty to be taken off the raw material.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The artificial silk manufacturers certainly have not stated that they would like the duty to be taken off this raw silk, which is what the proposal involves. The hon. Member has said, and it is a perfectly valid argument, that there is considerable difficulty arising from the tariffs of Canada and South Africa and some other places in regard to the valuation of the material which is exported from this country for the purposes of drawback. That is a matter which has been brought to the attention of the Government some time since. It was specifically raised at the last Imperial Conference, and the hon. Member will find the subject discussed in the course of the ninth Report of the General Economic Sub-committee.

Mr. REMER: If I may interrupt again, Mr. MacKenzie King has since stated to the silk trade that he will not give any concession whatever on the matter.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sorry to hear that the Prime Minister of Canada at present takes that view. The promise given to us at the time by the Dominion representatives was that the question should be examined, especially in regard to the special duties, in the light of the discussions which had taken place, and the Board of Trade have been in communication, not only with Canada but with other countries, and have
certainly not received any such disappointing assurance as that of which the hon. Member seems to have heard. But the Board of Trade will not desist from their efforts quite so soon, and the right way to meet any difficulty which exists by reason of the method of valuation adopted in Canada or South Africa is clearly, I think, to ask those countries to modify their regulations and methods of valuation if they find they inflict injustice on this country. I am sure, if they can, they will be disposed sympathetically to consider such a suggestion.
A further difficulty in regard to this Clause is that the existence of two classes of similar goods in this country, one of which has paid duty and the other of which has not, would involve the recasting of the whole of the existing drawback rates, would greatly complicate the administration, and would very much embarrass the exporters of silk goods, who would have to prove, in claiming drawback, whether the goods on which they claimed were goods which had, in fact, borne the duty. The information we have is that even the silk trade itself is not unanimous in supporting the present suggestion, and that the Silk Section of the London Chamber of Commerce is against the proposal on the ground that the proposed Clause would fundamentally alter the basis of the whole Silk Duties. For two years now the Silk Duties have been imposed, and a great deal of time was spent in Parliament in thrashing them out and in trying to arrive at a fair scheme, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not feel that it would be possible to make the modification suggested.

Mr. REMER: May I ask a question regarding the very important point about the drawback on spun silk, which is 6s. 8d. on British and 7s. 9d. on foreign. The effect of that is that the manufacturers and merchants wanting to buy, spun silk for export buy foreign if the price is the same, as against British. Would the right hon. Gentleman have that point put before the appropriate Department in order to see if something can be done between now and the Report stage to alleviate the difference of drawback on these two particular commodities?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I will cause inquiries to be made on that point, but I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman to give him satisfaction. I do not know that there may not be an answer to it.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Reduced duty on sugar refined in the United kingdom.)

For the purpose of calculating the duty on sugar refined in the United Kingdom, such sugar shall be deemed, notwithstanding anything in Section eight of the Finance Act, 1919, to be an Empire product to the extent of one-third of its value, and accordingly sugars refined in the United Kingdom shall be charged for Customs Duty at preferential rates representing the full rates of Customs Duty for the time being in force reduced by one-third of the respective amounts specified in the said second column of Part I of the Third Schedule to the Finance Act, 1925.—[Mr. Hannon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. HANNON: You were good enough to say, Captain FitzRoy, that I should be allowed to move this new Clause formally. I shall content myself with simply asking the Government to take this new Clause into consideration before the next Finance Bill—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): It is not in order for the hon. Member to speak without moving the Clause.

Mr. HANNON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I have already promised that I will move the Clause formally, and I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remember that this is a question of profound importance to a large number of workpeople in this country. I hope that before the next Finance Bill is introduced the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take into consideration all the aspects of the Sugar Duty, and extend to the sugar refiners of this country the proportion of the Preference to which they are entitled. This industry is at the present moment in a very parlous state, and surely the Government is not going to permit it to be destroyed simply by refusing a concession of the kind we seek in this new Clause.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I should like to ask you, Captain FitzRoy, if we shad be allowed to repeat our arguments upon this question?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That would not be in order, because we have already had a full discussion of this subject on a previous new Clause.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not think, under the circumstances, I shall be expected to make another speech on this question. The difficulties created by this new Clause have been very clearly put before the Committee, and I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat them.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(increased, preference on Empire brandy.)

As from the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, there shall, in lieu of the Customs Duty theretofore payable on Empire brandy, be charged, levied, and paid on Empire brandy imported into the United Kingdom for every gallon computed at proof—






£
s.
d.


In cask
…
…
…
3
5
4


In bottle
…
…
…
3
6
4






[Sir Cooper Rawson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
11.0 p.m.
I will endeavour, as briefly as possible, to state the facts in support of this proposal, which is intended to increase the Preference on Empire brandy. The amount of revenue involved is comparatively insignificant. Already the Preference given on other Empire productions has had an enormous effect in the direction of stimulating trade between this country and various parts of our Empire, and it is hoped that if this remission is made on Empire brandy it will stimulate production and encourage trade between this country and different parts of the Empire. The half-a-crown duty at present enjoyed by Empire brandy is inadequate to break down the prejudice in favour of French brandy, and it is felt, if this half-a-crown is increased to ten shillings, it will bring down the price of
Empire brandy within the reach of people who are not able to pay for it at the present time; and brandy, one has to remember, is not so much a beverage as whisky, but is used medicinally to a large extent not only in hospitals but also privately; and it is hoped that if the price is reduced, the cost to the hospitals will naturally be reduced proportionately.
I shall probably be met with the excuse from the right hon. Gentleman, who is replying, that this cannot be done. I put a question recently to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Empire brandy, and his reply was that an increase in favour of Empire brandy would involve a similar treatment for whisky, gin, rum, and other spirits. I submit that brandy stands in an entirely different category to whisky. There is no competition in any part of the world with Scotch whisky. There is no or little competition with rum, most of which comes from Jamaica. There is little or no competition with what is known as London gin, and, therefore, brandy stands in an entirely different category; and I submit that special treatment might be afforded to it by the Chancellor with a view to encouraging the production of brandy in Australia, South Africa, Cyprus, and also in Palestine. For the reasons I have given, I beg to move the Clause.

Captain GARRO-JONES: It is rather fortunate that there are not many inebriates in this House, because since Four o'clock we have been listening to nothing but the merits of brandy, whisky and wine. The time of the Committee is supposed to be very precious, but still the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) thought it proper to take about 45 minutes urging a reduction of the Whisky Duty, and now the hon. Member, who has just sat down, has urged a reduction in the duty on brandy. I notice the name of the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) is down to this new Clause. His name appears to be down to every Amendment concerning alcoholic drink—even sacramental wine. It is a little remarkable that all these hon. Members, who are trying for a reduction of the duties on alcoholic drink, have not been at all anxious for the reduction of the duties on tea and sugar.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: On a point of Order. There were 20 or 30 other names, but six only are allowed on the Paper.

Captain GARRO-JONES: My complaint was that the hon. Member does not seem so anxious to have the duties removed on the necessities of life, such as tea and sugar. The point which I desire to submit is this. All along the line we have had appeals for various reliefs from taxation, and also preferences, but hon. Members who made these proposals did not mind whether it was reducing the right to sell a bottle or a half-bottle, whether it was the extension of hours, or the reduction of duty. We even found the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) saying that although it was against his personal interest to support a Clause of this character, nevertheless he did so in the interests of liberty. The whole object of these proposals ought to be exposed. It is this. If there be one breach made in the line of restrictions which have been built up in the face of the most bitter hostility of the most powerful interests since the War, the whole beneficent fabric of post-War licensing legislation will be endangered. I appeal to the Attorney-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to allow that breach to be made, as the strongest protection against any unwarrantable extension is to be found in the reasonable restrictions that now exist.

Sir H. CROFT: I rather regret that the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) has taken this particular line on this subject, because it has nothing to do with the point in regard to home consumption or home trade. It is simply a request that the Government will consider giving an advantage to certain parts of the Empire in the matter of brandy. This was established and agreed to by, certainly, the official Opposition. They have agreed all along the line that where you can reduce duties in favour of the Empire, it is a thing that you aught to do. It is simply on those lines that this proposal is put forward. I believe I am right in saying that the total import of brandy at present is only about 5,000 gallons, and the loss of revenue would be a very small sum in itself, about £2,000. At the same
time, we should be establishing a principle to which both the responsible parties in the House are pledged. If the Attorney-General cannot give us a pledge that this will be done, I hope he will consider it by the Report stage, because the moral value would be very great if he could give assistance in this respect. Already, hospitals are buying South African brandy because they find it cheap. The least we can do in return for the very substantial preference we receive from South Africa is to assist their trade.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), I wish to say that his memory is a little short with regard to the attitude of the Opposition to this proposal. It is well within my memory that in the last Parliament the Government of the day, now represented on the Front Opposition Bench, not only stood up against the proposal but actually risked their existence in four separate Divisions on one night, when four of the biggest Divisions held in that Parliament took place on the reduction of duty on Empire products. There were 10 Motions on the Paper to increase the duty and four to reduce it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I cannot quite agree with the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) that we have been spending all our time in discussing alcoholic stimulants. Some time was spent, for instance, on a proposal to stimulate the production of babies; also on another proposal to stimulate the consumption of sugar; and just now we were discussing the importation of silk. No doubt, inasmuch as the alcoholic duties form a very substantial part of the Budget, it is not altogether unnatural that some time should be taken in discussing the proposals for reducing their amount. In spite of that, I am afraid that I cannot accept the new Clause. There is at this moment an existing preference on Empire brandy of no less than 2s. 6d. per gallon. The proposal is to make that 2s. 6d. into 10s. The same 2s. 6d. per gallon preference is given in the case of other Empire spirits, and that that stimulus is sufficient to enable Empire products to increase in consumption is proved, I think, not only by the statement of my hon. Friend just
now that there was an increasing demand in the hospitals for South African brandy because it was cheap, and I believe also that it has been proved very strikingly in the instance of rum, where foreign, non-Empire, rum, has dropped from 24 per cent. of the total consumption in 1920, which was the first full year of preference, down to 4½ per cent. in 1926–27, showing a very remarkable response to the 2s. 6d. per gallon preference granted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer feels that it would be impossible to grant a bigger proportion of preference in the ease of Empire brandy without at once creating a demand for equally favourable treatment from the Home Country and those Dominions which produce other spirits, such, for instance, as rum from our sorely-pressed West Indian Colonies. That would not cost a mere £2,000. It would run into £2,500,000, or something of that kind. Therefore, although I entirely agree that we ought to give this preference to Empire products in the case not only of brandy but of other Empire products wherever we can, and wherever there is a duty, I am afraid I cannot hold out any substantial hope that a larger preference will be given in the case of the production of brandy than has already been given in that case and in the case of all the other spirits which are subject to similar classes of taxation.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I must say, with profound respect, that I am not greatly impressed by the arguments of the right hon. and learned Attorney-General. He says that we have a preference of no less than 2s. 6d. a gallon; 2s. 6d. on the present tax of about 80s. That is a preference of three per cent. On tea, to which the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) referred, we are giving a preference of 33⅓ per cent. The preference is so ridiculously small that there can be no resistance to our proposal on the ground that preference is already so generous. Then, with regard to the case of rum; of course, we import 94 or 96 per cent. of our rum from within the Empire, because, broadly speaking, rum is not produced anywhere else to any large extent.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I pointed out that the consumption of foreign non-Empire rum was now 4½ per cent., but that six years ago it was 24 per cent. of the total consumption of rum.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the consumption of non-Empire rum was 24 per cent. six years ago. Broadly speaking, it is the case that Jamaica is the main source of the rum that is consumed, not only in this country, but in other countries. Those who have paid a visit to France, where apparently they drink a lot of rum, will always see this British rum there. Jamaica and the British West Indies are the main sources, and obviously there is no competition whatever between brandy and rum because in the particular kind of complaint for which brandy is the solution, I do not think that rum would be taken as the alternative. Although it may be impossible for the Government to make this concession on this occasion, I hope they will do something to assist a product imported from four parts of the Empire—two Dominions, one mandated territory, and one Crown Colony. Although on this occasion they may not be willing to sacrifice £2,000, I hope that before next year they will change their minds.

Mr. HANNON: South African brandy has been spoken of as cheap. South African brandy for the last 10 or 15 years has been produced under the most modern conditions. It is brandy of the highest class which is produced in the whole world. I sincerely hope that no member of the Committee will be left under the impression that South African brandy, given a reasonable preference, cannot hold its own in our market against any other brandy in the world.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Reduction of Betting Duty in case of bets made under certain conditions on sporting events.)

(1) Where a person while attending a meeting at which a sporting event is to be decided makes with a bookmaker so attending a bet on any sporting event of the same kind, the betting duty chargeable under Part II of the Finance Act, 1926, in respect of the bet shall be a sum equal to two per centum of the amount paid, or offered or promised to be paid, to or to the order or for the use of the bookmaker.

(2) In this Section the expression "sporting event" means any race, game, match, or any like event.—[Mr. Blundell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. BLUNDELL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Perhaps I can best explain the effect of this new Clause by way of illustration. In my constituency two of the main sporting events of the world take place—the Grand National and the Waterloo Cup. The Grand National is a race in which horses, accompanied, or sometimes unaccompanied, by jockeys, compete. The Waterloo Cup is a coursing meeting, in which two greyhounds compete with the hare.
If any hon. Member attends the Grand National and chances to have a bet with a bookmaker on the course, the benevolent Chancellor extorts only 2 per cent. of the amount of the stakes. If any hon. Member were to go to the Waterloo Cup and make a bet he would be mulcted in 3½ per cent. Racing has often been said to be the sport of kings, and while that may have been true in the past it is certainly not true now. It may be the sport of kings, but it is also the sport of the people. It is not right in these days that one sport of the people should receive a great advantage over all other sports. On behalf of all those who are interested in coursing I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Clause, of which the effect would be to impose the same amount of duty on all bets made on a sporting event, whether on a racecourse or on a coursing match or at a place where they course electric hares or race whippets or compete in any other form on which bets can be made. The Clause does not raise any controversial issues. It does not raise the issue whether it is moral or immoral to make a bet or whether it is moral or immoral to tax something which may be moral or immoral. It invites the Government to make their procedure democratic and to impose the same fine upon those who take part in any form of sport on any occasion when they bet on the course or on the ground on which the sport takes place.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The object of this new Clause is to assimilate betting on such events as coursing and the like to the existing law with regard to bets on horse-racing and it provides in effect that the duty at the lower rate of 2 per cent. shall be chargeable in the
case of bets made at a race-course where coursing is carried on in the same way as is already the law with regard to horse-racing. That is a matter that has been carefully considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I am informed by him that after considering with his advisers he thinks the proposal is reasonable, and therefore I propose to ask the Committee to accept it.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Stamp duties on powers of attorney.)

The stamp duty of ten shillings, under sub-head (6) of the head "letter or power of attorney and commission factory, mandate, or other instrument in the nature thereof," in the First Schedule to The Stamp Act, 1891, shall not be increased by reason of the persons named in such instrument as donors or donees being more than one, or by reason of such instrument being joint and several, or of such instrument containing or relating to several distinct matters.—[Mr. Withers.]

Brought up and read the First time.

Mr. WITHERS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause has nothing to do with whisky or anything of that kind. Powers of attorney are deeds drawn up by one or more persons, giving power to other persons to do certain actions on their behalf. These deeds are naturally liable to Stamp Duty, and the Stamp Duty was settled by the Stamp Duty Act, 1891, which provided that certain special powers should be charged at special rates and all other powers of attorney should be charged 10s. From 1891 until recently all powers of attorney have been stamped at 10s., whether they were given by a number of people to one person or by one person to a number of people. The number of donors and donees, and the number of matters dealt with in the powers of attorney have not been taken into account in altering the Stamp Duty. But recently the Inland Revenue Authorities have, in their zeal to get more revenue, made it a practice to charge an extra 10s. for the number of people who have executed powers as donors or the number of people who are appointed as donees. It has also been suggested that
they should charge an extra 10s. for the various items dealt with in the power of attorney. I suggest to the Committee that this practice of the Inland Revenue Authorities of extending taxation is not really advisable, and it has been said in this House before now that to extend a mode of taxation in a new way is really imposing new taxation. Therefore, all the various extensions have to be considered closely. For instance, it is provided, I think, that a receipt shall bear a twopenny stamp. Hitherto, any number of people signing a receipt have only paid twopence, and it will be a serious matter if the Inland Revenue authorities say that for every person who signs a receipt there shall be an additional twopence. They might also say that for any particular item or items in an account for which a receipt is given there shall be charged an extra twopence. I have no doubt whatever that this practice will not receive the approval of the Attorney-General, and I have great hopes that he will consider the matter. I am sure I need do no more than draw his attention to it, because he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when matters have been brought to their attention, have always dealt with these sort of things in a sympathetic and proper way. I have every confidence that they will do so in this ease.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers) drew quite an alarming prospect of the operation of the duties with an unintended passion. I do not think the Committee need have their flesh creep over the prospect of a separate twopence for every person who signs a receipt, or even separate cheque stamps for everybody who signs a cheque. I have heard no suggestion that these extensions are contemplated, and I doubt very much whether they would be legal. The particular point to which my hon. Friend's Clause is directed is the question whether, if power of attorney is granted to more than one person, there ought to be 10s. in respect of each donee. Whether or not legally more than one 10s. stamp is exigible is, as far as I have been able to ascertain, a somewhat doubtful problem of law. I agree that it was not intended
that there should be an extra 10s. merely because you have two alternative names in a power of Attorney. I am advised, however, that the Government are prepared in principle to accept the new Clause, though we cannot accept it in the form in which it is drafted, as it does not quite work out right. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be content to withdraw the Clause and accept the assurance that on Report we will introduce an Amendment which will meet the point with which he desires us to deal.

Mr. WITHERS: After what the Attorney-General has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion, and Clause, by leave withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 22 of the Finance Act, 1922.)

"Section twenty-two of The Finance Act, 1922 (which relates to power to require delivery of particulars of income for purposes of super-tax) shall be amended by substituting for the words 'as they consider necessary' the words 'as may be reasonably necessary for computing the liability of the individual to super-tax'."—[Sir J. Marriott.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is not much more than a drafting Amendment. Under the first Sub-section of Section 22 of the Finance Act, 1922, it is recited that
The Special Commissioners may, whether an assessment to super-tax has been made or not, require any individual who has been required to make a return of his total income for the purposes of super-tax to furnish to them within such time as they may prescribe, not being less than twenty-eight days, such particulars as to the several sources of his income and the amount arising from each source, and as to the nature and the amount of any deductions claimed to be allowed therefrom as they consider necessary.
The words to which I want to draw the attention of the Attorney-General are the last,
as they consider necessary.
At the time when this Section was added to the Act of 1922 it was generally supposed that it would be used only in special cases where there was good
reason to suppose that evasion was being practised on the part of the taxpayer. We have heard a good deal about this in recent discussions, and I suggest that an opportunity might be taken in the Finance Bill of this year to revert to what was undoubtedly the intention of this Section of the Act of 1922. My information is that this Section has by no means been used only in the way for which it was apparently and professedly designed. I am told that masses of detail information are required by the Special Commissioners, and that not infrequently the taxpayer is required to furnish information which is by no means relevant to his liability to Super-tax. I propose what is really not more than a drafting Amendment, though, I admit, a limiting one.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This new Clause has been moved before in the times of previous Governments, and uniformly rejected. It was brought forward in 1922, when the Clause we were discussing the other day was enacted, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott), who represented the Government on that occasion, said that the Clause was a vital one, and that the Amendment would go to the very root and render it most inadequate to check the mistakes as to Super-tax returns which were undoubtedly going on. The Revenue made an estimate of the saving which has been effected by the presence in the 1922 Act of the words as they now stand, and it, must amount, as nearly as they can estimate, to about £2,000,000 per annum. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Exchange Division in 1922 gave a number of striking instances of where it had turned out, after someone had died, and the particulars were carefully examined, that for years returns had been made—possibly by mistake—understating income sometimes to the extent of thousands of pounds per annum. It is impossible for the Commissioners to know beforehand which are the accurate and which the inaccurate returns. All they can do is to ask for particulars in a certain number of cases and, from such information as they are able to obtain, they are able to cheek, from time to time, the kind of returns which are coming in. It has been suggested that the Commissioners
are demanding all sorts of particulars on all sorts of topics. If they do so, they are exceeding their existing powers. All they can ask about are the sources of income, the amount from each source and the nature and amount of any deductions. I do not think they ever attempt to ask for such particulars as suggested; certainly they are not entitled to do so under the existing law. It is impossible for the Commissioners safely to accept a limitation of this kind, which would impose on them, in the case of anybody refusing to give particulars, the burden of proving in advance that the actual return was wrong, which in the nature of things they would not be able to do. On those grounds, is it no more possible now than it was in 1922, for the Government to ask the Committee to accept this proposal.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I am sorry the Government have not seen their way to accept this New Clause and, I regret to say, I have not quite followed the Attorney-General's objection to it. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has got his brief from the opposition offered in previous years to rather different Amendments. I fail to see how there can be any substantial loss to the Revenue by the alteration of the words proposed in the New Clause. The sole point of the proposal is whether the Special Commissioners are themselves to be the sole judges of what is reasonable. If they have endeavoured to obtain information which they consider reasonable but which nobody else considers reasonable, it seems to me they have been exceeding their proper duties, as the Attorney-General said. I do not think the Special Commissioners as a rule wish to exceed their proper duties but if there is the suggestion that this kind of thing has been done, I should have thought the Government and the Special Commissioners would have been only too glad to have the words altered so as to see that they were only required to get such information as might be reasonably necessary, instead of being left as sole judges. I am afraid at this time of night it is not much use pressing the matter, if the Government are determined, but I hope they will consider this sort of thing if the question is raised on a subsequent occasion.

Question "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.— [Description of Wine.]

Captain GARRO-JONES: On a point of Order. May I respectfully draw attention to the fact that the first two Amendments on the Paper to the First Schedule are on the subject of the taxation of alcoholic drink, and ask, with great deference, whether there is any method by which the Committee can reduce the amount of time expended on the discussion of this subject?

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. CAMPBELL: I beg to move, in 1, page 40, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:
Exceeding 25 degrees and not exceeding 30 degrees, if in a Customs or Excise warehouse on the twenty-fourth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, and delivered for home consumption between the twenty-fourth day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, and the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight.…
As I understand the Government are willing to accept this and the following Amendment, I do not propose to make any speech.

Mr. McNEILL: This proposal of my hon. Friend's is one which we think, after consideration, is a reasonable one. When considerable alterations are made in the duty on dutiable articles, and when there are large stocks in bond, there is always a case for exceptional treatment for those stocks. It is quite true we had already made provision to a certain extent for meeting the hardship which might be imposed on the owners of those stocks, but the case of the particular stocks covered by this Amendment has not been sufficiently provided for, we think, and I am therefore prepared to accept this Amendment, which, of course, is purely temporary in its operation.

Mr. HARRIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much this concession will cost the revenue, roughly?

Mr. McNEILL: Yes, roughly. I think this Amendment will cover about 1,000,000 gallons of wine, and on that estimate the cost will be about £150,000.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 151, Noes, 68.

Division No.250.]
AYES.
[11.39 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Albery, Irving James
Grant, Sir J. A.
Penny, Frederick George


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Perring, Sir William George


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Atkinson, C.
Harland, A.
Pilcher, G.


Balniel, Lord
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Henderson, Lt.-Cal. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Radford, E. A.


Bennett, A. J.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Ramsden, E.


Blundell. F. N.
Hennessy. Major J. R. G.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Briscoe, Richard George
Hills, Major John Waller
Remer, J. R.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hogg, Ht. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Salmon, Major I.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brown, Col. D.C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sandon, Lord


Butler. Sir Geoffrey
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l
Savery, S. S.


Campbell, E. T.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Carver, Major W. H.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Shaw, R. G.(Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Shepperson, E. W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Lamb, J. Q.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Smithers, Waldron


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Looker, Herbert William
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Christie, J. A.
Lumley, L. R.
Storry-Deans, R.


Clayton, G. C.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Cooper, A. Du[...]
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cope, Major William
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Tinne, J. A.


Couper, J. B.
Macquisten, F. A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George clement


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Margesson, Captain D.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Ellis, R. G.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Watts, Dr. T.


England, Colonel A.
Merriman. F. B.
Wells, S. R.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fielden, E. B.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Finburgh, S.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. at. Hon. B. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Forrest, W.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Womersley, W. J.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T


Ganzonl, Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph



Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Mr. Frederick Thomson and Captain


Goff, Sir Park
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Bowyer


Gower, Sir Robert
Oman, Sir Charles William C.





NOES.


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Potts, John S.


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hayes, John Henry
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)


Cape, Thomas
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John


Comoton, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Crawford, H. E.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dalton, Hugh
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sutton, J. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Taylor, R. A.


Day, Colonel Harry
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Dennison, R.
Kelly, W. T.
Varley, Frank B.


Edge, Sir William
Kennedy, T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kirkwood, D.
Welsh, J. C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lee, F.
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Lindley, f. W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mosley, Oswald
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Murnin, H.



Grundy, T. W.
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold
Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Barnes.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Paling, W.

Mr. CAMPBELL: I beg to move, in page 40, line 8, after the second word "degrees," to insert the words
and not being wine chargeable under this part of this Schedule with duty at the rate of five shillings per gallon.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I cannot allow this Amendment to be accepted by the Attorney-General, without one word of protest. On the last Amendment, as the result of an arrangement between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Camberwell, North West, no less a sum than £150,000 of the taxpayers' money was sacrificed, without two minutes of explanation being offered as to why it was necessary. We have been listening to the plea for economy on all subjects—tea, tobacco, sugar, even the the question of having a light in the Clock Tower to inform Members when a Division is in progress, because money could not be found, but it was possible, by a few minutes consultation, for the hon. Member for Camberwell, North West, to squeeze £150,000 out of the Treasury, to be put into the pockets of the vested drink interest. Now, we find another Amendment with the same object. The hon. Member simply says: "I beg to move," and the Attorney-General was going to accept it, without, the Committee being informed how much it involves.

The CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. and gallant Member that this Amendment is simply consequential upon the last. The Schedule would be nonsense without this consequential Amendment.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Does it mean that if an Amendment is consequential we are debarred from arguing the merits of it in any shape or form?

The CHAIRMAN: I was trying to assist the hon. and gallant Member.

Captain GARRO-JONES: What justification was there for the previous Amendment or for this consequential Amendment? How is it that the Government have been able to find this money for the vested drink interest? During the whole day we have been discussing Amendments—there are four pages of them—which consist of mass attacks by
Conservative Members and the Conservative Government upon the taxpayers' money, in order that they may get votes from their constituencies.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is out of Order.

Captain GARRO-JONES: We ought to be told how it has been found possible to find £150,000 for this purpose when it has been found impossible to find money for far worthier objects.

Mr. McNEILL: The hon. and gallant Member appears to complain of my right hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, for not having risen to explain this Amendment when it was called. My right hon. and learned Friend did the hon. and gallant Member the compliment of thinking that he would be able to see for himself that the Amendment was purely consequential. That apparently was giving him credit for more intelligence than was justified. I have already stated why the Government accepted the previous Amendment, and I think that explanation did not lack clarity. The reason was because we thought a good and just case had been made out on behalf of the owners of property who were prejudiced by the method adopted in connection with the duty. As far as the Amendment now before the Committee is concerned, the Chairman has explained to the hon. and gallant Member, and perhaps I may be allowed to repeat it, that it is purely consequential, and therefore, while not strictly out of order to oppose it, at all events it would render nugatory what has already been decided on by the Committee.

Mr. E. BROWN: I think the Committee will agree that the right hon. Gentleman has been a little hard on my hon. and gallant Friend, because we observed the tremendous fight which the right hon. Gentleman put up against the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) when he was considering a question which interested the consumers of the pottery in this country. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may smile, but if they were housewives they would understand that pottery represents a considerable item in the annual budget of the housekeeper.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will look at the Amendment, he will see that unless something of the kind be passed the wording of the Schedule would be contradictory; that is, of course, unless he can find some argument to show that these words ought not to be put in.

Mr. BROWN: With your permission, Mr. Hope, that is what I propose to do. I was replying to that, right hon. Gentleman who said that he was making this particular concession because certain people had suffered because their property was held up, and I think I am entitled to use against him the argument he used in a contrary sense against the hon. Member for West Leicester who was arguing that owners of property—

The CHAIRMAN: It might, have been in order to advance that argument before the last Division, but it is not in order now.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I am afraid that the diversion from the main argument which has just occurred has caused the Committee to lose sight of the reason for the original discussion. I have been following the Order Paper, Clause by Clause, and I also could not see at once—and I think there were a good many hon. Members who were not able to see at once—that this was a consequential Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman may secure a few easy cheers from his own followers by making this kind of attack on my colleague, but I think that the merest courtesy and the simple use, on the part of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment and of the right hon. Gentleman who accepted it, of the phrase "which is consequential on the last Amendment" would have removed all doubt.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 65.

Division No. 251.]
AYES.
[11.55 p.m.


Agg-Gardner. Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Moore, Sir Newton J,


Albery, Irving James
Ganzonl, Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Applin Colonel R V. K.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Goff, Sir Park
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Astor, Mal. Hn. John J. Kent, Dover)
Grant, Sir J. A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Atkinson, C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Balniel, Lord
Grotrian, H. Brent
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Frederick George


Bennett, A. J.
Harland, A.
Percy. Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Blundell, F. N.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Perkins. Colonel E. K.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harrison, G. J. C.
Perring, Sir William George


Briscoe, Richard George
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Britain, Sir Harry
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Pilcher, G.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hills, Major John Waller
Price, Major C. W. M.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Radford, E. A.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ramsden, E.


Campbell, E. T.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson. R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Cayzer. Mal. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsimth, S.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Remer, J. R.


Cecil. Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Salmon. Major I.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Christie. J. A.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Clayton, G. C.
Lamb, J. Q.
Sandon, Lord


Cooper, A. Duff
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Savery, S. S.


Cope, Major William
Looker, Herbert William
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Couper, J. B.
Lumley, L. R.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Shepperson, E. W.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Macquisten. F. A.
Smithers, Waldron


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Steel. Major Samuel Strang


Ellis R. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Storry-Deans, R.


England, Colonel A.
Margesson, Captain D.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Marriott' Sir J. A. R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Mason Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Tinne, J. A.


Fielden E. B.
Merriman, F. B.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Finburgh, S.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Forrest W.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Watts, Dr. T.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Wise, Sir Fredric



Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Womersley, W. J
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Williams Herbert G. (Reading)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)
Mr. Frederick Thomson and Captain


Wilson, B. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Bowyer.


NOES.


Ammon, Charles George
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Barnes, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Potts, John S.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John


Compton, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Crawford, H. E.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Dalton, Hugh
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sutton, J. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Taylor, R. A.


Day, Colonel Harry
Kelly, W. T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Edge, Sir William
Kennedy, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Kirkwood, D.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Gillett, George M.
Lee, F.
Welsh, J. C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lindley, F. W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Groves, T.
Mosley, Oswald
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Murnin, H.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Oliver, George Harold
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Harris, Percy A
Paling, W.
Whittley.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. E. BROWN: Do I take it that you are putting the Schedule which includes matches?

The CHAIRMAN: It is the First Schedule.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 56.

Division No. 252.]
AYES.
[12.4 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. H.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gault Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool. W. Derby)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore. Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfred W.
Goff, Sir Park
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Astor, Mal. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Grant, Sir J. A.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Atkinson, C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Balniel, Lord
Grotrian, H. Brent
Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Benn, sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Connor T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Bennett, A. J.
Harland, A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Penny, Frederick George


Briscoe, Richard George
Harrison, G. J. C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Hills, Major John Waller
Pilcher, G.


Butler Sir Geoffrey
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Campbell, E. T.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Radford, E. A.


Carver, Major W. H
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Ramsden, E,


Cayzer, Mal Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Rees, Sit Beddoe


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Remer, J. R.


Christie J. A.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Roberts. E. H. G. (Flint)


Clayton', G. C.
Lamb, J. Q.
Salmon, Major I.


Cooper, A. Duff
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cope Major William
Looker, Herbert William
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Couper J. B.
Lumley, L. R.
Sandon, Lord


Courtauld, Major J. S.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Savery, S. S.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Curzon, Captain Viscount
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


England Colonel A.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
shepperson, E. W.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Fairfax Captain J. G.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Smithers, Waldron


Fielden, E. B.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Forrest, W.
Merriman. F. B.
Storry-Deans, R.


Fraser' Captain Ian
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wells, S. R.
Womersley, W. J.


Tinne, J. A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wise, Sir Fredric
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Watts, Dr. T.
Wolmer, Viscount
Captain Margesson and Captain Bowyer.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Oliver, George Harold


Batey, Joseph
Mayday, Arthur
Paling, W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hayes, John Henry
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Cape, Thomas
Henderson, Rt. Han. A. (Burnley)
Potts, John S.


Compton, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Crawford, H. E.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Dalton, Hugh
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
smith, Ben (Bermonasey, Rotherhithe)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sutton, J. E.


Day, Colonel Harry
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Tinker, John Joseph


Edge, Sir William
Kelly, W. T.
Varley, Frank B.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kennedy, T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Kirkwood, D.
Welsh, J. C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lee, F.
Whiteley, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lindley, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell. D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William
Windsor, Walter


Grundy. T. W.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mosley, Oswald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland]
Murnin, H.
Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Barnes.


Harris, Percy A.
Naylor, T. E.

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE.— [Tobacco.]

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 56.

Division No. 253.] 
AYES.
[12.11 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Goff, Sir Park
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Albery, Irving James
Grant, Sir J. A.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Allen. J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Penny, Frederick George


Applin, Colonel H. V. K.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Astor, Mal. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Harland. A.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Atkinson, C.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Balniel, Lord
Harrison, G. J. C.
Pilcher, G.


Beamish Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Radford, E. A.


Bennett, A. J.
Herbert, Dennis (Hartford, Watford)
Ramsdon, E.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hills, Major John Waller
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Briscoe, Richard George
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Britain, Sir Harry
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Remer, J. R.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
salmon, Major I.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sandon, Lord


Campbell, E. T.
Lamb, J. Q.
Savery, S. S.


Carver, Major W. H.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Cayzer, Mal. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Locker, Herbert William
Shaw R. G (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Lumley, L. R.
Shepperson E. W.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Christie, J. A.
Macdonald Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smithers, Waldron


Clayton, G.C.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cooper, A. Duff
Makins, Brigadier-General E.



Couper, J. B.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Storry-Deans, R.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Margesson, Captain D.
Sykes, MaJor-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


England, Colonel A.
Merriman. F. B.
Tinne, J. A.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Fielden, E. B.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Forrest, W.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Watts, Dr. T.


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wells, S. R.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Morrison-Bell. Sir Arthur Clive
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Wise, Sir Fredric
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Wolmer, Viscount
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Major Cope and Captain Bowyer.


Womersley, W. J
Young. Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)



NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Paling, W.


Barnes, A.
Mayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Potts, John S.


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Compton, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Crawford, H. E.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Dalton, Hugh
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sutton, J. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kelly, W. T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Colonel Harry
Kennedy, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Edge, Sir William
Kirkwood, D.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lee, F.
Welsh, J. C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lindley, F. W.
Whiteley, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lunn, William
Williams, I. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Mosley, Oswald



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Murnin, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Naylor, T. E.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Harris, Percy A.
Oliver, George Harold
Hayes.

Orders of the Day — THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Matches.)

Sir J. POWER: I beg to move, in page 42, line 19, to leave out "6s. 0d." and to insert instead thereof "4s. 6d."
Since 1919 the importation of matches has very nearly doubled and the production of British matches has steadily diminished until to-day they are only two-thirds of what they were then. These figures, I think, must give a certain amount of concern to anyone. Whether my Amendment will remedy this state of affairs remains to be seen. There may be different opinions about the matter, but whatever opinion may be as to the method proposed, there can be no difference of opinion as to the seriousness of the position of the match industry. The figures speak for themselves. The only question is whether we are content to leave the industry in the condition in which it is at present. Certain developments which have taken place in the last few days must have given concern to everyone, because they are an attempt on the part of the British match industry to cut down expenses in advertising and in other directions so as to enable themselves to live. This Amendment would, of course, give a measure of protection to the industry, thereby giving more employment to our people, perhaps at the expense of the foreigner.

Mr. McNEILL: I noticed the satisfaction it gave to the Committee when the hon. Gentleman said the figures spoke for themselves.
I will say as little as possible on the subject. I understood my hon. Friend to make a criticism of the figures in the Schedule on account of the effect on the match industry. All that I want to do is to read a letter which may be of some satisfaction to hon. Members opposite as well as to hon. Members on this side of the Committee, because I remember when we debated the Match Duty at a former stage questions were asked as to how far in the arrangements that had been made with the match industry the parties had been consulted and to what extent they were satisfied. I am able to give some later information on that subject, because my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a letter signed by the Vice-Chairman and the Hon. Secretary of the Joint Industrial Council of the Match Manufacturing Industry. I will read the substance of the letter:
At the meeting of the Joint Industrial Council of the Match Manufacturing Industry held on Thursday. 21st April, 1927, it was proposed by Mr. T. W. Hoare (National Union of General and Municipal Workers, London), seconded by Mr. T. Williamson (National Union of General and Municipal Workers. Liverpool), supported by Mr. A. E. Ellery (Workers' Union, Gloucester) and carried unanimously:—
'That this Council has noted with gratification the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the method of computing the Match Duties, which should operate more fairly to the British manufacturer (and to the consuming public), and should check the serious decline in employment in the industry.'
I think that is satisfactory in showing that in the view of both parties to the Joint Industrial Council the changes are likely, at all events, to be of benefit to the public and the trade.

Mr. E. BROWN: The Committee know that I have taken some little part in the discussion on the Match Duty, and I would like to refer to the question I put to the right hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion. The question I put to him with regard to the bringing forward of this new suggestion for a change in duty operating under the Schedule was, as to what firms were in consultation with the Treasury, and what the effect would be? The answer was to the effect that the relations were confidential, and no firm could be mentioned, and that the effect would be in favour of the consumer. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that since the previous debates on this question there has been an announcement in the Press that one of the leading match firms—Messrs. Bryant & May—has made an arrangement with the Swedish Match Combine with the result that the figures have spoken for themselves very loudly on the tape in this House and on the markets? I should also like to ask whether he still thinks, after what has happened during the last few days, the arrangement regarding the Match Duty, was undertaken in order to protect the British manufacturer against the foreigner, and in order to give an advantage to the consumer, or whether the Treasury had not better go further into the details? Can he give us any information as to what the arrangement is between the Swedish Company and Messrs. Bryant & May, because we understood in previous debates the enemy was the Swedish Combine. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I raised this question, and we were distinctly told in the debates that the foreign companies, including the Swedish companies, were the enemies of the British manufacturer, and that this was being done in order to protect the consumer against manipulation by the foreign firms. I still feel very suspicious that this is a combination of the manufacturers with the Treasury to raise the duty against the public, and to extract more taxation from the consumers of matches, and I would like the right hon.
Gentleman to give the Committee some explanation.

The CHAIRMAN: This is an Amendment to reduce the Excise Duty.

Mr. BROWN: I clearly understand that, but the Financial Secretary raised the general question by reading the letter from the Joint Industrial Council.

The CHAIRMAN: No. The point the Financial Secretary made was that the match trade was doing very nicely, and therefore the Amendment was unnecessary.

Mr. BROWN: The point I was making is germane to the Amendment; perhaps I am not expressing myself quite as clearly as I should. My point is, that this arrangement was made for the purpose of protecting the manufacturers against foreign competition, and now we are informed that the largest firm in this country has made an arrangement with these very foreigners, and this Committee is entitled to know the terms of that arrangement. We are concerned with what the Treasury have to say about the arrangement with the British manufacturers. I want to protect the British consumer against trickery by the foreign manufacturer.

Mr. HAYDAY: I am a little concerned about the letter which the Financial Secretary has read. I am one of the officials of one of the organisations represented on the Joint Industrial Council, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us the nature of the inquiry by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which led to that letter being written. It is not an endorsement of this duty, but only an appreciation of some new method, and I should like to know the nature of the inquiry which led to the writing of the letter and the circumstances which surrounded the occasion.

Mr. McNEILL: The only reason I read the letter was because an hon. Member opposite inquired on a former occasion whether the operatives in the trade were consulted or only the employers, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not able to give an answer. As far as I am aware, although I will not absolutely pledge myself, no inquiry was addressed by the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the
Joint Industrial Council, but it is possible that the question to which I have referred may have been noticed, and as a consequence the letter was written. I will read the covering letter:—
 Dear Sir,
Please note attached copy of resolution unanimously approved by the Joint Industrial Council of the Match Manufacturing Industry at its meeting held on Thursday, 21st April, 1927. It was the desire of the Council that you should be furnished with a copy of same, and I have pleasure in enclosing one herewith.

Mr. KELLY: What is the date of that letter?

Mr. McNEILL: The 27th April; and it is signed: "A. E. Seabury, Vice-Chairman."

Mr. HAYDAY: Since this question was raised a few days ago communications have passed, and that resolution has only just come to hand. If hon. Members will read the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow they will see that the Financial Secretary says that at the time the question was put the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not answer it. Since then the information has come to hand. It would appear on the face of it as though that information had only come to hand since the previous discussion.

Mr. McNEILL: With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), I am afraid that I cannot answer the question he has put to me, because I was not aware of the arrangement of which he has spoken.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not quite see what this has to do with the lowering of the Excise Duty.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am very sorry, like the rest of the Committee, that this important discussion should have come on so late when those who speak feel under an obligation to speak as briefly as possible. I recognise to the full, the advantage to the industry that has come

through the change in the system of taxation. Before the change, the tax was so much per 10,000 matches. Foreigners were in the habit of packing 30 to 45 matches in a box, while the British manufacturers packed 50 matches in a box. Let me give an example of the effect of the change, which will show that it has not been adequate. On a basis of 40 matches per box, in the case of foreign safety matches, the duty works out at 248 of one penny per box. In the case of the British matches, which are packed 50 to a box, the duty works out at 3 of a penny. So that the British matches are, in fact, being taxed more highly than the foreign matches. That is one of the reasons why you are offered foreign matches if you go into a shop and put a penny on the counter. The result of the change in the system of taxation is that, since the duty is to be so much per 144 boxes of matches, matches will be taxed at the same rate whether they are British or foreign. So I do not think the change goes far enough having regard to the fact that in Belgium, where girls are employed in packing, the wages paid are about 40 per cent. of those paid in this country. I regret very much that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) is not here, because he realises, I know, the seriousness of the situation. I will now put my last point. When I point out to the Committee that the importation and consumption of foreign matches in this country is twice as much as it was six years ago and the consumption of British made matches has dropped to less than two-thirds of what it was, we see an industry suffering a very severe blow, and I think we ought to do something to protect the wage rates of our own people.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Schedule be the Third Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes 130; Noes 51.

Division No. 254.]
AYES.
[12. 36 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Ht. Hon. Sir James T.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)


Albery, Irving Jamas
Bennett, A. J.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Campbell, E. T.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Briscoe, Richard George
Carver, Major W. H.


Applin, Colonel B. V. K.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. A. (Prtsmith. S.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Balniel Lord
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Christie, J. A.


Clayton, G, C.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Remer, J. R.


Cooper, A. Duff
Lamb, J. Q.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cope, Major William
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Salmon, Major I.


Couper, J. B.
Looker, Herbert William
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Courtauid, Major J. S.
Lumley, L. R.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sandon, Lord


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (l. of W.)
Savery, S. S.


England, Colonel A.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorkt, WR., Sowerby)


Fielden, E. B.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Shepperson, E. W.


Forrest, W.
Margesson, Captain D.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Fraser, Captain Ian
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Smithers, Waldron


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Merriman, F. B.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Storry-Deans, R.


Gault Lieut-Col Andrew Hamilton
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore, Lieut-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Goff, Sir Park
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Tinne, J. A.


Grant, Sir J. A.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. I. T. C.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Grotrlan, H. Brent
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Watson. Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Watts, Dr. T.


Harland, A.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wells, S. R.


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Windsor-Clive. Lieut. -Colonel George


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hills, Major John Waller
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wolmer, Viscount


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pilcher, G.
Womersley, W. J.


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Radford, E. A.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Ramsden, E.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Rawson, Sir Cooper



Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetiand)
Oliver, George Harold


Barnes, A.
Harris, Percy A.
Paling, W.


Batey, Joseph
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.


Compton, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hirst, G. H.
Sutton, J. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Taylor, R. A.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfleid)
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Colonel Harry
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Varley, Frank B.


Edge, Sir William
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kelly, W. T.
Welsh, J. C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Kennedy, T.
Whiteley, W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kirkwood, D.
Williams, T. [York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lindley, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William



Grundy, T. W.
Murnin, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Naylor, T. E.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.

Orders of the Day — FOURTH SCHEDULE.— [Amended Rates of Duty in the case of certain mechanically propelled vehicles.]

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 42, line 38, after the word "person," to insert the words "owning agricultural land or".
The object of this Amendment is to cover the case where the landlord agrees to cultivate with his tractor land belonging to his tenant. It is not intended to cover haulage. In such cases it is customary for the landlord to pay the expenses of running the tractor, and to
charge his tenant such expenses which, I believe, technically constitutes hiring, and I hope the Minister will consider this aspect of the case.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I did not appreciate exactly what my hon. and gallant Friend wished, but now that he has explained his Amendment, I will see if the point can be met.

Captain BOURNE: That being the case I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. SMITHERS: I beg to move, in page 43, line 3, at the end, to insert the words
For the purposes of this Schedule the expression 'person engaged in agriculture' shall include nurseryman.
I can assure hon. Members that I am moving my Amendment in the interest of agricultural labourers. The object is to ensure that all people engaged in agriculture, such as nurserymen and market gardeners, shall receive the benefit of the amended rates of duty in this Schedule. Around London and other big cities you have many people engaged in agriculture who produce vegetables and new potatoes. Many of these nursery market gardeners have as many as ten or twelve acres of glass in order to produce early vegetables to compete with the similar kind of market produce that comes in from abroad, and some have found difficulty with the local authorities in getting the benefit of these amended duties. It is for that reason, as they are producing food and are doing their best under difficult circumstances to compete with the foreigner, that I ask the Government to say what their views are on this Amendment.

Colonel ASHLEY: This Schedule definitely lays down who should get the reduced rates, and, if the Committee will consult the Schedule, they will see very definitely to whom it applies. Obviously, I could not accept the Amendment, because if you accept the word "nurseryman," which includes people who provide seeds, you will at once depart from the definition as to an occupying tenant or

owner of the land. Also, if you include "nurseryman" you will have to include agricultural implement makers, or anyone who supplies articles to agriculturists. But what my hon. Friend has in mind is really market gardeners. Although there has been no legal definition, market gardeners have always got the benefit of this concession as being agriculturists, and I cannot help thinking that there is some misapprehension on the part of my hon. Friend. If I can do anything to assist, I will do so, but in my opinion they are entitled to this exemption. I will consider the matter before the Report Stage.

Mr. SMITHERS: In view of the expression of opinion by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander)—in page 43, line 10, at the end, to insert the words
After the words 'whether in the course of trade or otherwise,' there shall be inserted the word 'other than vehicles kept by a local authority and used in the performance of their duties relating to the removal of refuse and the cleansing, watering, and repairing of streets'.
—would impose a higher rate of duty and is, therefore, out of order.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Schedule be the Fourth Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 127: Noes, 43.

Division No. 255.]
AYES.
[12.48 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Christie, J. A.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Albery, Irving James
Clayton, G. C.
Grotrian, H. Brent


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cooper, A. Duff
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cope, Major William
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Couper, J. B.
Harland, A.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Balniel, Lord
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bennett, A. J.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Eden, Captain Anthony
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Briscoe, Richard George
Edge, Sir William
Hills, Major John Waller


Brittain, Sir Harry
England, Colonel A.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Fielden, E. B.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Broun-Llndsay, Major H.
Forrest, W.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Brown, Ernest(Leith)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Ganzonl, Sir John
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Campbell, E. T.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Lamb, J. Q.


Carver, Major W. H.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Cayzer, MaJ. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Looker, Herbert William


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Goff, Sir Park
Lumley, L. R.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Grant, Sir J. A.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (l. of W.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Power, Sir John Cecil
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Radford, E. A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Ramsden, E.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Margesson, Captain D.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Mason, Lieut-Col. Glyn K.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Watts, Dr. T.


Merriman, F. B.
Remer, J. R.
Wells, S. R.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Salmon, Major I.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sandon, Lord
Wise, Sir Fredric


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Savery, S. S.
Wolmer, Viscount


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Womersley, W. J.


Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shepperson, E. W.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Smithers, Waldron



Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Mr. Penny and Captain Bowyer.


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)



NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Potts, John S.


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Compton, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sutton, J. E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Taylor, R. A.


Dalton, Hugh
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Colonel Harry
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Varley, Frank B.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Kelly, W. T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Graham, O. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kennedy, T.
Welsh, J. C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)
Kirkwood, D
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lindley, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Lunn, William



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Murnin, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Oliver, George Harold
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Hayday, Arthur
Paling, W.
Whiteley


Hayes, John Henry
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Question put, and agreed to.

FIFTH SCHEDULE (Amendments of Finance Act, 1920 and of Income Tax Acts) agreed to.

SIXTH SCHEDULE (Enactments repealed) agreed to.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House."

Mr. DALTON: May I ask whether it will not be in order for the new Schedule to be moved relating to the Entertainments Duty?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That will not be in order, because there is no Clause that depends on it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Then we will divide on it.

Question put.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Major Cope and Mr. F. C. Thomson were appointed Tellers for the "Ayes," but there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the "Noes" the Chairman declared that the "Ayes" had it.

Bill reported; as amended to be considered Tomorrow (Friday) and to be printed [Bill 170].

Orders of the Day — LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Additional Land Tax Commissioners.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Captain GARRO-JONES: This is a Land Tax Commissioners Bill, and it must be a matter of some importance. It is now seven minutes past One O'clock. I think a large number of Members have received letters from a certain body asking them to nominate certain men to be appointed Commissioners. Other Members, I believe, have not received those letters. The letters varied in form. Some said that it was the right of hon. Members of this House to nominate these Commissioners. Others said it was the right of the already existing Commissioners. Late as the hour is, I should like to have these matters cleared up. What is this Bill? Who has the right to nominate the Commissioners? Are women allowed to be nominated? I took the opportunity of nominating a very distinguished lady in my constituency. I have
not yet learned whether that nomination has been accepted. If I am right in my supposition that this Bill has to do with the nomination of these Commissioners, then I hope that we shall receive from the Government some explanation of the Bill and on the points that I have raised.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. NcNEILL: I should have been very glad to give the hon. and gallant Member an explanation of the Bill, but I gave a very full explanation on a former occasion, and I thought it would still be within the recollection of hon. Members. I explained at that time that hon. Members would receive requests—or might receive requests—from the Land Tax Commissioners in their own constituencies inviting them to make nominations for Land Tax Commissioners for their respective districts. It is not necessary that in every case an hon. Member should have received such a letter. My advice is that almost everywhere, in every constituency, hon. Members have been approached by local authorities with lists which it was open to them to receive as they were or to strike out some nominations, or add any other nominations they liked, and within a certain period deposit the lists in this House. The hon. Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) has asked me whether women are eligible for these appointments. I have never heard that point raised before. I can only say that I conclude that, under the Sex Disqualification Removal Act, women would be eligible. That is only my own personal opinion, and I cannot give any definite ruling on the point. Of course, I need not remind hon. Members that we cannot take this Bill if there is any opposition at this time of night, but I had hoped that hon. Members would desire it to go through as it is entirely for their own convenience and the convenience of their constituents. The procedure is that as soon as it passes through Committee, and the persons have been nominated in the various districts, the names will appear in the "London Gazette," which is the equivalent to their being put in the Schedule of this Bill, and that record stands and is accepted under this legislation as the authoritative record of those who have been nominated.

Mr. CRAWFURD: As the right hon. Gentleman has raised the question of those letters, which were supposed to have been received by hon. Members for the purpose of nomination, I would like to ask one or two questions. From whom do the letters come? I take it that, if no letter is sent out, there is no need to nominate Commissioners, but what course of action is open to an hon. Member where no letter is received? I believe there has been some amount of irregularity, because several hon. Members have inquired why no letters have been sent.

Mr. McNEILL: I have not heard myself of any such cases, but, if the hon. Member has a case within his knowledge and communicates with me, I will see if there has been any irregularity.

Mr. PALIN: In such a case, would it be too late for the names to be included?

Mr. McNEILL: Yes, the notices were sent to hon. Members.

Mr. E. BROWN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea of the number of extra Commissioners required? The number seems to me to be fairly constant.

Mr. McNEILL: Dees the hon. Gentleman mean the number of nominations?

Mr. BROWN: The number of extra Commissioners.

Mr. McNEILL: Nobody can know, except at the Public Bill Office, until they have appeared in the "Gazette."

Mr. COMPTON: I happen to be one of 10 Members for a city and I received a notification from the Commissioners that a list had been sent on to another Member, but they failed to supply me with a list of names. In accordance with my right, I submitted a list of my own. Will that appear with the semiofficial list?

Mr. McNEILL: I do not like to be too positive, because it is a point I have not had an opportunity of considering, but my impression is that if the hon. Member has delivered his list to the Public Bill Office before the specified date his list will appear.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I wish to raise the point of justices of the peace. This is another indication of the class struggle in Society. I am not opposing the Bill, but I would like to draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the conditions that exist when Commissioners are being appointed for purposes of this description, because we find as Labour Members that when we nominate justices of the peace they are turned down.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That matter has nothing to do with the Land Tax Commissioners.

Mr. McNEILL: Perhaps I can smooth matters. In the case of these Commissioners, there is no parallel with the appointment of justices of the peace. In the case of justices of the peace, the, hon. Member may possibly make a recommendation, and, as he says, that recommendation may be turned down. But in this case he himself has absolute power. He has only to nominate someone within the area of his constituency, and no one can turn the nomination down.

Captain GARRO-JONES: We ought not to let this Bill go through without a clear understanding that the right hon. Gentleman will investigate the irregularities. I want also to know how many vacancies there are on the Land Tax Commissioners. From a recent letter it appears that about 50 new members will be sufficient. If this post is worth having, if it is not a sinecure, it ought to be on some sort of regular basis. If the right hon. Gentleman can assure the Committee that he will go into these, irregularities, there is no need to oppose the Bill, but that assurance ought to be given.

Mr. McNEILL: The hon. Gentleman is expecting rather too much from me when he asks me, because that can only be rectified by Act of Parliament. There is no limit, as far as I recollect, to the number of possible Land Tax Commissioners. There is a body of Land Tax Commissioners in every district, but the area for which they are appointed does not coincide with any other modern area. They are obsolete territorial areas in many cases, and what happens is that as a rule a Bill like the present Bill is
passed about the beginning of every Parliament, roughly every six or seven years. But a very large number of Land Tax Commissioners was affected in 1906, so many that there has been no replenishing of them since. Therefore, it is 21 years since one of these Bills was accepted by Parliament. That accounts for the fact that we in this House are not familiar with this legislation. In consequence of that lapse of time, there are many districts where there has been so much wastage that the existing Land Tax Commissioners have come to the conclusion that their number ought to be replenished. Not so in other cases. In certain areas the Land Tax Commissioners thought it was unnecessary to add to their number, and there was no obligation on them to do so. That is really, I think, an accurate description of the procedure.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 (Short title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of The Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, Burgesses of the borough of Tiverton, which was presented on the 23rd May and published, be approved, subject to the following modification:—
Clause 4, line 2, substitute the word 'July' for the word 'June'.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of The Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Flint Gas and Water Company, Limited, which was presented on the 24th May and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of The Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Newport Pagnell Gas and Coke Company, Limited, which was presented on the 25th May and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of The Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Cleethorpes Gas Company, which was presented on the 25th May and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of The Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Deal and Walmer Gas Company, which was presented on the 16th June and published. be approved."—(Sir Burton Chadwick.)

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of The Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Newquay (Cornwall) Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 17th June and published, be approved, subject to the addition of the following Clause:—
Saving Rights of Duchy of Cornwall.
Nothing in this Order contained shall prejudice or affect any property, rights, powers, authorities, or privileges of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cornwall in right of His Duchy of Cornwall or of the possessor of the Duchy of Cornwall for the time being."—(Sir Burton Chadwick.)

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to draw the attention of the House to the last paragraph—
Nothing in this Order contained shall prejudice or affect any property, rights, powers, authorities or privileges of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cornwall in right of his Duchy of Cornwall or of the possessor of the Duchy of Cornwall for the time being.
I would like to ask, is it not time that we were stopping all this nonsense. I want to ask the question, why there
should be special privileges granted to the holder of the Duchy of Cornwall? Why is he specially mentioned here? Why is it that there should be some differential treatment meted out to this individual? I have never met him; I do not know if he is a poor man that he should require this all-powerful institution, the House of Commons, to safeguard his interests. If the House will only turn its attention for the next half-hour while I develop my point, I hope they will see that this individual is under the guise of a name that is not very familiar with the vast majority of the lieges—that is a good word. He is called here the possessor of the Duchy of Cornwall—that is a very nice part of Britain. Cornwall is a very fine part in good weather. I want to know from the Minster who is going to reply to us this morning before we go home to our beds, whatever hour that may be—I cannot tell at the moment—I want to know why this special treatment, because we are led to believe from all sides of this House, Tories, Liberals, yea, even Labour men—are all within this building equal. Then I want to know who this individual is, what he is, where he comes from; if he is a human being, or, if he is a descendant from Mars who has arrived on the scene, that requires special treatment meted out to him.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present—

The House was adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes after One of the Clock till To-morrow [Friday].